Postelection poll results CONTRADICT media claims that U.S. is a "center-right" country

[MNReformer]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200811070013?f=h_latest

More proof of stolen elections.

[Enthusiast]

1. The key here is "media claims"

The media is center right, in their own minds. Some of the media could be characterized as far right.

[Jamastiene]

2. I'll be so glad when it changes over for Obama.

I'm looking forward to fresh new faces on television.

[bananas]

3. But Obama is center-right

Why do I have to keep posting this?
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008
"When examining the chart it's important to note that although most of the candidates seem quite different, in substance they occupy a relatively restricted area within the universal political spectrum. Democracies with a system of proportional representation give expression to a wider range of political views. While Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader are depicted on the extreme left in an American context, they would simply be mainstream social democrats within the wider political landscape of Europe. Similarly, Obama is popularly perceived as a leftist in the United States while elsewhere in the west his record is that of a moderate conservative. For example, in the case of the death penalty he is not an uncompromising abolitionist, while mainstream conservatives in all other western democracies are deeply opposed to capital punishment. "

[Berry Cool]

4. I don't buy it.

One of the reasons I became attracted to Obama in the first place is that he struck me as more center-left than anything else.

I mean, come on, that graph has RALPH NADER as "center left." Fricking RALPH NADER.

In short, you have to keep posting this graph because people don't believe in its accuracy like you do. They believe it is wrong, because by its calculations, just about every prominent politician in America is a right winger. And that's just not true.

Since when is Europe the arbiter of who is truly "right" and "left"?

[bananas]

11. Here's the DU distribution from last year

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2161247&mesg_id=2161336

[lala_rawraw]

62. these three new trolls are the same

person... don't bother even communicating with it

[MNReformer]

15. Obama is "centrist" but not center-right.

Naomi Klein says that it is apparent to her the electorate can push him off the center more to the left. It's up to us. He needs to hear from us and understand what we demand in return for our support.

[fasttense]

5. I know center-right conservatives.

I live with them and some other not so center conservatives here in the heart of red country.

I know conservatives and you, President elect Obama, are no conservative, neither are the people who voted for you.

[MNReformer]

9. The majority of the electorate voted for Obama.

And at least six million of our votes were suppressed/stolen, per Greg Palast and RFK Jr. and the folks over at http://www.electiondefensealliance.org -- go look at their study of the raw exit poll data and see.

[Wilms]

6. Welcome

That ain't proof of "stolen elections".

[BeFree]

7. Actually

The proof can be found in the fact that since we gained an upper hand on the electronic theft machines, more and more dems are being 'magically' elected causing the media to proclaim that 'suddenly' the country is not so conservative as once imagined.

If one still needs proof that elections have been stolen then one just hasn't researched the history. But when one does they find that this country has been voting dems in for the last 20 years.

We are not a right leaning country, and now the press seems surprised. Don't be fooled again, is what is important.

[MNReformer]

8. They are seriously questioning the results in Alaska right now.

Those results make no sense. They were even discussing it openly on Bill Maher's show on Friday. Remember in 2004 when Murkowski wouldn't let the election integrity activists look at the public records for Alaska's elections?

[BeFree]

10. I sure do remember

And its been the same old story everywhere. The results for the last 20 years are questionable and all we ever have heard up til now is rejections of letting interested people examine the processes and counts.

When 'they' try to keep something hidden any sensible person can take that as evidence something ain't right. Only a fool would do otherwise.

The media has been foolish, and methinks they just might be wising up. Finally. Anyway, the people are wising up.

[ObamaDaMan]

12. I Agree

One has to be a professional debunker to look completely into the facts and think that elections aren't being rigged. If Obama didn't have such a big lead, that thing would have been stolen. It's pretty obvious the numbers are getting fudged too, to make everything fit into the 50-50 lie.

We need to distinguish between the politicians and the people. The people are left wing. Obama, I'd put him right dab in the center. He just hired a chief of staff who might not be the best one for middle east peace. I want Obama and the Democratic Party to clean this up immediately, start putting people in jail. We are desperate for hand counted paper ballots. Without those, we will continue to be cheated.

Unemployment was bad in Ohio in 2004. No way did Bush win either election. There is a debunker on this board who is so fixated on exit polls, he never talks about the other things that the cheaters did. He seems to be trying to go the smear Dan Rather route. Find one point, then discredit everything else proving GW was a chickenshit draft dodger. I personally would never fight in a war. True men don't need to fight in wars, they fight against them. This is an illegal war. It's time to get out RIGHT NOW!

[BeFree]

13. Indeed

There are a very few posters here who still believe that bush actually won any US election. There were quite a few who also did, some 4 years ago. But now there are just a teeny-tiny few, and those few ignore the mass of evidence, sticking to just one little point. Going the Dan Rather route, as you say.

A little secret about DU: things discussed here for any length of time, always end up in the mass media eventually. So we must keep it going. We must peacefully soldier on, so that we will see the whole story on the nightly news one day.

Probably, what happened this time was that many down ballot races were stolen... we have seen an awful lot of funny numbers already and it hasn't been a week yet.

[MNReformer]

14. Right, they targeted the downticket seats.

And attempted to lessen Obama's authority by keeping it more "even". They did this in 2006 as well--we were supposed to take 20-30 more seats. This is all pretty apparent to me--there should have been an equivalent landslide for the Democratic challengers to the obvious suspects like Stevens, Coleman, Chambliss, even Bachmann...They couldn't steal the presidential race, it would have been impossible to convince the electorate.

[ObamaDaMan]

16. Real Progressives Not Wanted

The Randi Rhodes Message Board has an awful reputation for being rigged. They just changed the title of their election forum to we won, or something similar.

I agree that the more of us who speak out, the more chance there is for the truth to emerge. Unfortunately, most of the great truths are being spoken in college classrooms with about 20 students at a time. That's not going to get it done.

There's a reason the ptb's decided to make this a noisy topic. That way if any of us try to be a forum leader, we will be shaped as being a disruptor.

Most people are peaceniks. But when the talk radio is skewed, when Karl Rove types have all these sophisticated plans to pervert the internet, that's when the obvious becomes hidden.

Yet, I agree again, that the more of us who speak out sincerely, the less likely republican infiltrators will be able to suppress true progressives and not keep propping up rightwing, tabloid, fearmongers merely dressed up as progressives.

[MNReformer]

17. That's what Jonathan Simon said, pretty much at MICU

You know, he's with Election Defense Alliance. He did a great seminar with Greg Palast and Jesse Jackson at MICU just before the election--you should watch it--they go into the suppression of the evidence and how it has become a people's issue to get it out there.

http://streaming.mica.edu/events/091708_constitution_day_ref.mov

[ObamaDaMan]

18. It's Tied In With the Planted Convolution

On another thread, someone asked me why I was questioning the OP so tough, when I was basically in agreement with her that the primaries had a lot of strange results. It's because the truth should be what we are after. It's called having a discussion. This is not about us versus them. This is about social reality, in this case, specifically to do with the lack of electoral integrity in America.

I am on dial up. I tried to listen to that lecture. It looked good. Thanks for trying.

Was Simon ever part of the Verified Voting Foundation? Strangely enough, the Scoop {op-ed news?} website has pages saying that. I get the willies from the VVF. I trust Simon.

I think there is a group working behind the scenes to shape how electoral integrity appears on the internet. I've seen and made too many connections. Not Bozo style. There are just too many odd things. My hobby was reading through the forum archives. I went down the rabbit hole.

When I googled Simon, I noticed he was the kind of person I wanted to hear. I appreciate academics like himself and Freeman stepping forward, among the many other academics. OnTheOtherHand makes it seem that Freeman is some lone thinker running around on hobby horses with regular duderino Robert F. Kennedy.

Yet, there are tons of people who realise the elections have been rigged. There are also tons of academics who realise the system stinks! This society has been rigged to dumb us down. However, Americans tend to do the right thing when aware of injustice. Spreading the word is serving a good purpose.

The irony is that all the crazy convolution is coming out of people from right center to worse. I believe through the triangulation, that the ruling center has become right of center.

I've been following this forum for years. I am no newbie except for posting here. The more the good lurkers chip in, the greater the potential to make a difference with the netroots. Otherwise, rightwingers will continue to post as if they are Democrats. Look at PUMA. That was ugly republicans trying to steal the Democratic Party. That was cointelpro. Does Larry Johnson now work for the FBI? I believe that Kos is dangerous. Who goes out of their way to call the electoral integrity movement full of kooks? Do people truly understand the dirt that has emerged on Markos Zuniga?

Progressive voices are being drowned out. First they called us commie pinkos. Then they called us liberals. Then when they realised most people are proud of being liberal, they stole the word progressive. Now that was too good a word for them to sully. So they stole it.

I think the word Republican has become the dirty word, now way worse than liberal ever got astroturfed. They cheat the polls. They stole NH for Hillary. They make it a whatever 5% Obama win when it was probably 20%.

[OnTheOtherHand]

19. iFreeman is just plain wrong if he thinks

that the 2004 exit polls were remotely accurate. So is Simon, whether or not he is an academic. If you want to debate the merits, step right up. No one else will -- including Freeman and Simon. If you could find a dozen others like them, that would still be fewer academics than endorse intelligent design theory. But if their arguments made any sense, I wouldn't care how many of them there were.

[MNReformer]

21. How do you feel about Greg Palast and Jesse Jackson?

Do you think they have a different agenda?

Simon admits that the entire argument into the stolen elections loses its voice when it becomes "academic" and he says it is the principal way in which some people ensure the issue is kept from open discussion.

Are you one of those people?

[OnTheOtherHand]

23. "agenda"?

I could speculate about Palast's "agenda," but I don't see how that would shed light on anything. Lots of people have found him to be unreliable on matters of fact, but he isn't always wrong. Personally I've never had much of an issue with Jackson's agenda.

I don't think it's "academic" to care whether Simon is right. I think he is wrong, and I'm willing to say why, here or anywhere else. Do you think it is academic to care whether he is right? Maybe you do. I would think we all ought to care whether he is right.

[MNReformer]

28. Simon's meaning is that the debate is forced to become academic.

The "media" and the DNC won't make a public issue of it and it therefore is reduced to discussion in academia.

[OnTheOtherHand]

30. the problem with that is

that almost no academics in relevant fields give credence to Simon's work. That could be a problem with the academics (academics have plenty of problems), but I'm of the unrebutted opinion that it's a problem with his work.

[MNReformer]

31. Does that preclude Congress and/or the media from investigating it?

My response would be that it does not; rather, such sunshine would help to determine whether or not the research does in fact have credibility and what needs to be further investigated.

[OnTheOtherHand]

35. I haven't said anything about investigations

It's a matter of record that when left-leaning media have investigated certain specific fraud arguments and found them wanted, they've been pilloried as "left gatekeepers." Of course this shouldn't preclude appropriate investigations -- by media, Congress, law enforcement, anyone else.

(I've spent a lot of time over the past four years investigating past elections, so I'm always puzzled when this talking point comes up. People don't disagree with Jonathan Simon because they are opposed to "investigations"; they disagree because they think he is wrong.)

[OnTheOtherHand]

44. pre-coffee post: meant "wanting"

It does seem that the fraud arguments are "wanted," but that's beside the point.

[ObamaDaMan]

37. C. Wright Mills

Mills was the greatest American Sociologist of all time yet was forced to the outskirts of Columbia University by elitists. A big problem with academia is that it is corrupt. Few academics actually have the morals plus the gonads to be true leaders in a rotten society.

You should provide us with proof that almost no academics are giving credence to Simon's work. I'd also like to see a list of all the academics giving credence to your work! I am of the opinion that someone like yourself posting a lot on message boards is a rare breed. There is probably a reason for that. You are like a fish out of water. So yes, thanks in advance for providing the extensive list of academics supporting your whitewashing of the 2000 and 2004 elections.

It's quite strange how you continue to prop up the Bush regime, when all indications are that both elections were rigged.

Plus, you seem to only like to debate on your own terms. You ever hear of the phrase the evoking of authority? I'm looking forward to getting that list of academics supporting your work. Don't forget to include far rightwinger Rick Brady on your list!

It's quite strange how you attack any academic who speaks up for the American people in regards to the obvious election fraud. Funny, but you dodged out of answering tough questions on this bottom link, too. Alas, we didn't have the pleasure of hearing more of your sophistry. We only got the hit and run post about popcorn.

It's not what you know. It's who you know.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=510474&mesg_id=510546

[OnTheOtherHand]

42. you apparently have no terms to debate on

You could consult the political science journals yourself -- but I suppose they all lack "sociological imagination." You could simply state facts, but I guess they aren't imaginative enough either.

It's quite strange how you attack any academic who speaks up for the American people in regards to the obvious election fraud.

Your "sociological imagination" at work again. Don't blame C. Wright Mills for that. The problem is not in your stars....

[peacenik37]

50. The "Kook" Got Banned

According to someone else in this thread, that person got banned. I also see how their posts got deleted. It's very obvious what's going on.

When did this forum become part of the rightwing? Center right is not progressive. Progressive is to the left!

[OnTheOtherHand]

55. it isn't

I could only guess why you think this forum is "part of the rightwing," but frankly it's hard for me to care.

You might want to review DU rules. Falsely accusing other members and/or the mods of being rightwing is a pretty good way to get banned. It makes sense when you think about it. McCarthyism isn't traditionally considered a progressive value.

[ObamaDaMan]

22. I am very accurate

It's not just Freeman and Simon. It's not just the exit polls which prove without doubt that the elections have been rigged. Sometimes sir, one needs to utilize a sociological imagination. Any info on voter suppression for us? I recommend you broaden your horizon from the insular {right-center?} realm of Political Science.

Anyway, you're the only Phd. debunker on this board. I don't see any Einsteins in your debunker camp.

What I find alarming about your approach is its complete propensity to zoom in on one issue and disregard everything else.

The totality of the evidence suggests widespread election fraud. For you to deny this fundamental reality over and over again is simply shocking and dare I say exasperating. Or it's popcorn time.

[OnTheOtherHand]

24. it's not the exit polls at all

This doesn't call for a "sociological imagination." It calls for a reality check. Most forms of voter suppression couldn't even contribute to exit poll discrepancies, because the discouraged voters wouldn't participate. But I can't force you to care what actually happened.

Anyway, you're the only Phd. debunker on this board. I don't see any Einsteins in your debunker camp.

Wow, that's straight from the creationist playbook. Why does it matter how many Ph.D. debunkers there are on this board? Why should there have to be any? Why can't you take responsibility for your own bunk?

Here, take the OTOH Challenge: do you think that Kerry won New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota by double digits? If so, why?

[ObamaDaMan]

25. a reality check indeed

The main point is that exit polls are just one small topic of a vast array to be found concerning electoral integrity. This isn't debate club. This is meant to be a discussion. Sure, voter suppression would knock down exit polls. They might even explain some of the discrepancies between earlier polls and the final results.

Are you saying that America is right of center? Are you arguing that it took the sheer stupidity, greed, and recklessness of the Bush Administration for an Obama victory in an alleged conservative country?

The point about the Ph.D's is that you are the only "expert" who spends all this time on this specific board discussing primarily exit polls. I was simply debunking your claims that there weren't many academics who would agree with claims of election fraud. A question to you is, why are you here if it's so obvious there has been no election fraud?

I actually wouldn't mind hearing some different ideas from yourself, as regards to voter suppression and other forms of election fraud that go beyond some simplistic, circular debate about exit polls. This thread isn't about exit polls, anyway. Your fixation on exit polls doesn't seem healthy for discourse.

Maybe you should start your own thread on that Kerry thing with NH, Penn., and MN, and see if anyone else bites. I am on this thread, because I do not believe we are a conservative country. I also believe that election fraud is the one thing holding us back from eventually rejoining the human race.

[OnTheOtherHand]

26. I get this intellectual evasion all the time

I don't effing need to be lectured about the vastness of the issue. Too often that becomes an excuse for "Don't bother me with facts."

"Sure, voter suppression would knock down exit polls."

I'm not even sure what "knock down" means. Care to explain?

"I was simply debunking your claims that there weren't many academics who would agree with claims of election fraud."

What claims of mine are you debunking? Which claims of election fraud? If you aren't interested in discussing the issue, why pretend? There's no need to have a sock-puppet discussion with the OTOH in your head. I'm right here. I'm not the one who dragged exit polls into this thread. If you want to bullshit about the accuracy of exit polls, that's your prerogative. If you just don't care, that's fine too, but then it's pretty lame to challenge me about caring more than you do.

Now, apparently you're convinced that Bush lost in 2004. I don't think you have a solid basis for that. You may actually believe that I'm strategically avoiding some other subject that would prove that he did. Go ahead, dude, pretend I'm The Man, and stick it to me. At least try to convince me that you actually care. So far it's all smoke and mirrors.

[ObamaDaMan]

27. Let me get you a tissue

You can't prove that Bush won in 2000 or 2004. You have no solid basis for saying that he did. On the other hand, there is plenty of reason to believe that Bush was never elected. This country is left center. Most people are liberal. The 50-50 lie has gone on for too long. Even with all the propaganda from the last decade, with the Limbaughs and the O'Reillys, the votes have increasingly moved away from the repiglicans. It's that simple. One shouldn't be so fixated on the exit polls. There are plenty of other thingss which contribute to the overall plausibility that the elections were stolen. Hey, when they knew Don Siegelman was beloved by Alabama, Rove had him put in jail for being a Democrat. Sir, it is confusing to see you keep propping up a regime which has stolen elections, started illegal wars, committed torture, wiretapped, on and on. Why do you continue to support this? One would have to be very naive to think GW Bush won any election. That sounds like the real koolaid to me.

I know it can be very painful to be aware that your President was a cheater, that our country has blood on its hands, that civil liberties are getting trashed, etc.. That's why I got you the tissue. I think someday you'll realise how the elections were stolen. I think it's just too painful for you to face it so soon.



If there is voter suppression, then of course, there will be less votes for the exit polls.



You don't seem to understand what sock puppets are. That's when someone has multiple usernames and holds fake conversations with themselves and other people on the payroll. Remember Robert Pelletier? We can assume he also had some sock puppets. We can assume that fake dramas have been put out not just on this subject but everywhere public comments are allowed to be published. Google Netvocates and the Rendon Group. That should get you started. :)



I don't think you're the man. You just seem to represent the conservative branch of the Democratic Party.

[OnTheOtherHand]

33. an espresso might be more useful

Are you actually unaware of talking in circles? It amazes me.

You're the one who expressed certainty that Bush didn't win; it's not up to me to provide whatever you might consider a "solid basis" that he did. Of course I can't compel you to defend your dogma; I can only scoff. I generally don't have problems with people who viscerally believe that Bush lost but don't claim to know it.

This country is left center. Most people are liberal.

That may be true in your "sociological imagination," but the real world out there is, at best, a lot more complicated. If you ask people whether they are liberals, liberals are clearly in the minority. That's not the only relevant datum, but when someone whistles right past it, I wonder.

Sir, it is confusing to see you keep propping up a regime which has stolen elections, started illegal wars, committed torture, wiretapped, on and on. Why do you continue to support this?

I don't. It is confusing to see you keep making shit up about me. What's that about? No, actually, I don't care.

If we're going to play dueling psychobabble, then, maybe it is too painful for you to consider that we might actually have elected a regime that started illegal wars, committed torture, wiretapped, on and on.

You are carrying on a fake conversation with the person you imagine me to be. I know that isn't the standard point of a "sock puppet," but I'm trying to startle you into glimpsing the weirdness of your projections about me.

If there is voter suppression, then of course, there will be less votes for the exit polls.

What does that mean, "there will be less votes for the exit polls"? What is a vote for the exit polls? If you can't make a single point clearly, then we can't get very far.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OnTheOtherHand]

43. huh?

When did I ever claim that I could prove Bush won any elections? You're still talking with that imaginary OTOH in your head.

I couldn't care less whether Freeman has serious math skills: they aren't relevant to the issue. My big gripe about Freeman is that he's wrong. Apparently that doesn't interest you much either way, since I can't seem to get you to address the substance of his arguments in any way whatsoever. (ETA: That would be fine if you wanted to discuss some other substance instead, but I'm not seeing that, either.)

Self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals in survey after survey. We can discuss the relevance, but don't pretend not to know it.

If votes are suppressed, then those people aren't going to be able to vote in exit polls.

What you wrote was: "Sure, voter suppression would knock down exit polls. They might even explain some of the discrepancies between earlier polls and the final results." I asked you what you meant by "knock down." You moved on to "there will be less votes for the exit polls." I remained confused. Now I can tell that you think of participating in an exit poll as a "vote."

So, apparently we agree that most vote suppression would not contribute to exit poll discrepancies. There, that wasn't so hard, was it? :shrug:

[ObamaDaMan]

45. It's gotta be tough for the reader to not know what was written before

I guess it's ok for you to call me schizophrenic. I made some excellent points and am reading through my screenshots trying to figure out what I did wrong. I can't debate you without a level playing field. Have a nice life.

[Ellipsis]

46. *poof* RIP "Kooky".

Thanks Mods








http://www.flickr.com/photos/sensesworkingovertime/85809830/







.

[peacenik37]

47. What was kooky?

Does he believe in aliens?

It's time for the left to unify. The right-center has been proven to be a myth! It's time to go way left, disband the military, and wipe out the corporate greed. It's time to count every vote and redistribute the wealth. Make love not war. It's time for America to grow up.

:hi:

[Ellipsis]

48. WELCOME to DU. Just wishing bon voyage to a troll after a brief encounter in another thread.

Like far out man... Peace love dove. Drop the act. If It didn't work in the counter culture of 60's, with what's been bred into our society today we'd surely be devoured, I think you know that.;-)

Left, right, center...fuck it. We need to stop painting ourselves into polarized corners and agree to discuss and listen rather then berate and demand.

[peacenik37]

49. Drop The Act?

It's time to weed out the Republicans who have taken over the Democratic Party. It's time to stop killing innocent people with our disgusting military. What a sad post you made. I find it difficult to believe any Democrat would write that. I'm not buying the act. People all across the internet are starting to see through the act. Hahaaha.

That post made zero sense. It read like propaganda.

Do you have a link to this alleged trolling?

Has this board always leaned to the right?

[Ellipsis]

52. Mornin'

Nah the board doesn't lean to the right.



"People all across the internet are starting to see through the act", I agree with you.

[lala_rawraw]

66. Andy is dead...

and he was never a Republican... so are you weeding him out too?

[peacenik37]

51. Your Signature is for Larisa Alexandrovna

Your signature makes it seem you are Larisa Alexandrovna. I saw how ObamaDaMan was correct about Larisa lying about Brett Kimberlin's past. Now you are attacking me for believing in peace being a real Democrat?

You called someone a troll. Have you some links to prove that? The other person had links proving Larisa of RawStory was lying bigtime.

[lala_rawraw]

53. Say what?

[peacenik37]

56. Here

You posted misinformation about Brett Kimberlin. Perhaps you'd like to retract?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2358825


Also, the person above calling ObamaDaMan a troll made it seem like she was you. Check out how she has changed her signature today after being asked about it. Instead of explaining the link, she just changed it making me look like a liar. Now she questions whether I am truly anti-war. I'm not the one trying to blur lines between the left, the middle, and the right.


The first screenshot signature goes directly to "Larisa Alexandrova's" blog.

Before:





After:

[Ellipsis]

58. I am indeed a fan of Larisa and her articles on Don Siegelman

I did change my sig in honor of you thou. I change it often as befits my mood.

Interesting that you feel a need to take screen shots...


and that would be "HE"

[lala_rawraw]

61. i guess

this troll and ObamaDaman are the same person... you can tell by their inability to make any sense and do it in exactly the same way. follow both around too, notice a pattern: attack election integrity people, post smears in election forums... seems like someone is very interested and for a very specific reason... both "people" or both personalities of the same twisted person need to be banned and the IP for good.

[Ellipsis]

67. .

:toast:

[lala_rawraw]

60. actually, you and the troll are the same person

hon

[Ellipsis]

54. My apologies

"Now you are attacking me for believing in peace being a real Democrat?" If those are your beliefs...


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=232440








Have an eyeopener man.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ellipsis]

59. They should ... I believe the other posts were removed because they were personal attacks

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lala_rawraw]

65. You and ObamaDaMan are the same person

How stupid do you think people are? We know you own both accounts moron.

[MNReformer]

29. I believe Kerry won by that margin in Minnesota.

Obama won by 10 points. What is "curious" to say the least in Minnesota is that a state that is decidedly blue overall--in its Twin Cities urban areas and along the Iron Range--would "elect" someone like Norm Coleman, or Tim Pawlenty or Michelle Bachmann--while also electing Paul Wellstone, Hubert Humphrey, Amy Klobuchar, Walter Mondale, Mark Dayton etc. This is completely inconsistent. We had a very partisan Republican secretary of state here until 2006. We worked hard to elect Mark Ritchie instead. I dare say that if Mary Kiffmeyer had interfered with the election on her own behalf it would have been quickly questioned and/or the voters would have initiated investigations. That same election left me wondering how on earth Mike Hatch could have "lost" to Tim Pawlenty, when we elected Amy Klobuchar by a wide margin. It makes NO sense.

[OnTheOtherHand]

then do you think the 2004 pre-election polls were rigged?

They varied, but none of them gave Kerry a double-digit lead in MN. (They did often give Obama a double-digit lead there.)

It may seem inconceivable to you that your state could elect both Wellstone and Coleman, but that doesn't make it "completely inconsistent." (A lot of the rest of us are pretty quizzical about "The Body," or the 15% who just threw their votes to Barkley.)

As for Pawlenty and Klobuchar, she had a double-digit lead in the polls; he barely trailed. For all I know it's possible that some sort of fraud put him over the top, but it's far from a logical necessity.

[MNReformer]

34. Jesse was a preferable alternative to the two party candidates.

There is a lot of impetus to IRV and third party candidates in this state.

The electorate split over Jesse, however with more support from Democrats than Republicans.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/11112008/business/answers__please__138094.htm

2002 saw some strange elections and just after HAVA passed--nearly everyone wonders how Chambliss beat Cleland and how Mondale as Wellstone's substitute lost to Coleman.

Overall, this is still a blue state and Minnesota has been considered a bellwether state for progressive political shifts.

[OnTheOtherHand]

36. it may be blue "overall," but

every indication was that it was competitive in 2004. If you're really convinced that Kerry won by double digits, you're sort of on your own. Where do you think those votes were?

Many people thought that Mondale was in trouble after the memorial service, so it didn't come as a big shock when he lost. (The two late polls disagreed about who was ahead.) I don't think HAVA had some magical capacity to alter MN elections! It's logically possible that the scanners were hacked, or something, but it would be helpful to have some supporting evidence. Do you suppose that the count was wrong in every precinct? that certain counties were attacked? what? If I thought that a bunch of Minnesota votes had been stolen in those years, I wouldn't be sitting around wishing for someone else to "investigate."

As for Georgia, with their voting system, who knows? But even if we assume that the Georgia elections were rigged in 2002, that doesn't get us very far.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MNReformer]

20. I hear you and I'm with you. That's why I posted the seminar.

The most trusted people to me are on that panel. And if you can watch it on some other computer with high-speed access I definitely recommend it.

Simon is ANGRY. Very angry.

[ObamaDaMan]

39. I won't forget

Thanks for the link and the name.

People can keep astroturfing that we are a rightwing country, but I'm not buying into that one bit.

Anger can be a good thing. Perhaps frothing at the mouth would be too much, but the severity of the widespread corruption compels us to step forward. It is now or never. It is time for America to get rid of this military economy.

That's why the ptb's are all over the internet spreading lies, sitting on truths, and basically gatekeeping. We are very close to total victory. The ptb's cannot suppress us forever. I refuse to let right of center or worse take control of the Democratic Party and this world. I refuse to let the word progressive become perverted by rightwingers and their tabloid nonsense.

It's time for the US to join the rest of humanity, not the other way around. Bush, Rove, et al should be in jail. It is sad to see the rubbish spewed that we are a rightwing nation. Only election fraud is allowing that facade to remain standing. But not for long.

Truth Even Unto Its Innermost Parts

[lala_rawraw]

63. wow, you have three new identities

on here, all talking about elections, all attacking well respected election reform advocates and your three personalities are even talking among themselves. do you think people on here are stupid? go to the shrink or go back to freeperland or back to the crack pipe your climbed out of... but don't hang around here. especially after you attacked Andy the way you did... nothing like kicking a dead man ?

[peacenik37]

68. I'm Not MNReformer.....

if that's what you're implying.

Based on your logic, one can't question Ronald Reagan, because he is dead.

You lied about Kimberlin. You said he was a political prisoner. You said he was exonerated for the bombings and for having DoD insignia and all that bizarre crap in his possession.

I am not singling out any "election integrity activists" except for you, Brad, Andy, and Brett. You can talk me up as being AA, but I'm not. That whole AA versus youse guys was scripted, imho. Andy was tied into Vreeland and Flocco. And again, you clearly lied about Kimberlin's past.

Go and get me banned. I'll be banned anyway. But the truth will eventually rise above your convoluted, internet activities. You and your ilk will be exposed, whether you like it or not. You lied on that Kimberlin thread. You had the chance to retract but have made yet another strategic error.

It will be common knowledge someday what has been going on with "electoral integrity" and these complex made-up scenarios.

Finally, I find it strange why everyone keeps referring to Diebold. Didn't they change their name to Premiere Solutions or something like that? Why not mention both names. Are you protecting them? Did they change their name back to Diebold?

I'm not the freeper troll. Hello to your buddies Jason Leopold and Ben Burch, too. I'm done with you.

:hi:

[lala_rawraw]

69. ooohhh

you figured it out, me, Brad, Andy and Brett and a bunch of your psycho pals from the right all work for Diebold... you nailed us. good for you! moron... your bus is leaving...mkay? thanks for discrediting yourself in one quick post and you did it so well too. toodles.

[Ellipsis]

70. I suppose this means our date to the masquerade ball is off and just got my blue chiffon...

dress back from the dry cleaners and was combing out my favorite beehive wig.

*Double poof*

RIP

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our fourth quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[TellTheTruth82]

41. center-right

Watching most of the stations and reading the newspapers, all I saw was that the country used to be center right, but is now center left. Which media outlets are claiming otherwise??? I noticed the article didn't say....