Pretty strong evidence the GOP is nervous about '06, + a note about voting

[WilliamPitt]

Got this from Roll Call just now:

GOP Source: Gallegly to Switch Course, Seek Re-election

By David M. Drucker
Roll Call Staff

Monday, March 13

Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.) has reconsidered a last-minute decision to retire and will announce Tuesday that he intends to seek re-election this year after all, a move that comes at the urging of House leaders and members of California’s GOP delegation, a knowledgeable source said late Monday.

Gallegly’s sudden retirement announcement Friday spawned political chaos in his district, leaving some Republicans to threaten write-in campaigns to succeed him. Over the weekend local party leaders, assuming Gallegly was calling it quits, had begun lining up behind attorney Michael Tenenbaum, a first-time candidate who originally was planning to challenge the Congressman in the June 6 Republican primary.

A House Republican aide familiar with the conversations said that Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Reynolds (N.Y.) and others spent Monday recommending to Gallegly that he run for and serve one more term, as California law prevents him from removing his name from the primary ballot. “Elton has had such a good career, there’s no need to end it this way,” the aide said. Messages left with Gallegly’s office were not returned Monday.

More, but a pay site: http://www.rollcall.com/issues/1_1/breakingnews/12534-1.html

===

Gallegly's been in for 20 years. He's 62 years old. He wanted to quit. He won the seat last time with 63%. The seat isn't in danger of being lost, though Gallegly is being challenged by Jill Martinez, who is a Presbyterian minister in Oxnard. Hastert personally jumped on him and got him to run again. Why?

This, perhaps? Doing so, reports Roll Call, "would also clear Republicans from having to spend money in a very conservative district they should hold, without putting in the effort to handle the fallout of having one individual on the ballot who is not running, one political unknown who is, and one or more who might run as write-in candidates."

There are now 16 open seats in the House in '06. Gallegly's retirement would have made 17. The Democrats need 15 seats to take back control. Seemingly, this is an immense hurdle to clear. We almost have to run the table. Still, the GOP is arm-twisting 62-year-old men who want to quit into staying, so they don't have to spend the money, so they won't have 17 seats to deal with.

I think they're really nervous. I think, maybe, they should be. We are outpolling them across the board, they are stapled to virtually every ongoing scandal and crisis, and they are stapled to a president whose newest approval ratings, were they water, would almost be frozen. So that's cool, but then there's this.

In another thread, someone declared that they were pretty much not going to vote because they were pissed about the Feingold thing today. I wrote out a whole post about this, but the thread was locked in the interim and when I hit the button, my post went poof. So I'm going to throw it against the wall here.

I understand being pissed off. I understand being frustrated with the Democratic leadership, furious that they do not seem to get terribly exercised about galactically important issues. To steal a line from a different debate, the Democrats of late never seem to miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity, and for those who want to see real change take place, this appearance of rudderless purblind stasis is astonishing and appalling. I get it.

But I cannot abide those who declare they will note vote. The person whom I was responding to lives in a state with two Republican Senators, seven Republican House members, and six Democrats in the House. The Rep in his district is a Democrat, and has a GOP challenger. His Rep could use his vote.

16 open seats, 15 seats needed to take back the House. And they're nervous.

Here's my thinking. People want a progressive, liberal change in Congress. I definitely do, and that's why voting, and voting Democratic, is the single most progressive thing anyone can do in '06. All the legitimate frustration with and complaints about the Democrats do not amount to enough of an argument against voting Democratic in '06.

Because if we vote Democratic in '06, and we get out the vote in hordes, it is possible that we will see John Conyers, Jr. sitting as Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee come January. Chairman Conyers will have hearing after hearing - I know his staffers, and they have done epic and tireless research into Iraq, the NSA spying issue, the outing of Valerie Plame, and they would go buck-wild with an opportunity to present this evidence in a majority hearing - and all that we know about what this administration has done and will do will be taken as testimony by subpoena order under oath and under penalty of purjury and obstruction.

THAT is the most progressive, liberal goal I can possibly imagine. You want to investigate and impeach these bastards? Not just a censure like today, but a Dan Burton fussilade? You want to stop this administration cold - zero degrees Kelvin cold - and bring some order and accountability back to this crazy government? Vote, and bust your ass to see that others vote as you do. Give John Conyers the chairman's gavel, and the walls of Jehrico will tremble.

So. They're worried. Vote. 16, we need 15.

(/preachy rant code)

P.S.: There will be, in this thread, a good number of people who will question whether voting is useful at all, given the Electronic voting/Diebold situation. Absolutely undoubtedly legitimate concerns, yes, but I worry that such declarations might convince some that the exercise of voting is pointless. In short, I don't think that problem is an excuse for avoiding the polls. To the contrary, I think more people voting puts more stress on these systems, and glaring flaws or inaccuracies are more easily recognized.

[babylonsister]

1. Thanks, Mr. Pitt, for the info. nt

[Tom Joad]

2. Open seats does not mean too much. If it is in a district

where *nothing* bushie can do would make people vote against the party, then a republican is going to win. Some districts that are open are probably very Dem, so a dem will win.
It's those very few swing districts, open or not, that will make a difference.

Yes, be prepared to vote. Vote against the Republicans.

[bleever]

3. Want to help the Repugs? Don't vote. Give up, because your

candidate didn't support censure, or cry for immediate impeachment, or because the voting system is unreliable and probably rigged.

Go ahead: put your foot down and refuse to support the Dems because they didn't do it the way you wanted it done. That'll show 'em.


Seriously: push hard on every issue, on every front, scream and shout for what you want, but don't be deceived. Any time you let yourself be splintered off by your disenchantment with your own party, the only winner is the people you most want to beat.

And they're nervous, and worried that we'll stay unified and focus.


So stay unified, and stay focused, through all the conflict and drama. We can win back the House.

[UrbScotty]

67. Right on. (nt)

[Blaze Diem]

4. Thank You Mr Pitt

I've been yammering about this all week..
Its all about 2006 people.
The shift of power in DC in November, FINALLY breaks the stranglehold of Bush's power.
We can yap all we want about Censure, impeachment, atrocities to our rights and despise the ground they all stand upon..
BUT nothing will change the bleeding of OUR America more than taking and acting like we are willing to UNITE for the good of a most common goal.
"The Constitution cannot defend itself.." 7 months from now we can either be actually realizing the possibilities of salvaging all Bush has destroyed in our Great Nation, ..OR...we hand it over to Bushco and shut up forever.

2008 will NOT be ours without grabbing back the 2006, November elections first!

Thanks
Blaze

[DuaneBidoux]

70. Yes but Dem national leadership needs a coherent message. We have made th

e mistake too many times of assuming that simply because everyone is unhappy with Rethugs everone will vote Dem. Right now there are all kinds of openings because of Bush's unpopularity and scandal and Dems still aren't getting any bounce out of it on a national level.

[EFerrari]

5. Our election systems suck terribly. So, you MUST vote and

make sure your vote is counted.

Do not be an election weenie. Vote, dammit, and insist on seeing your vote count.

People have fought and died for the right to vote.

Defend it or lose it.


:kick:

[Warren DeMontague]

6. Re: EV-- What do you think about advising people to vote Absentee?

I know here in California, a good number of us are pretty concerned that our "Secretary of State" McPherson, who got the office through dubious means to begin with, is ramming through certification on Diebold machines. One of the last things Kevin Shelley was doing as he was taking on Diebold (before he was run out of that office) was telling voters in counties where they might have to vote on these machines, to vote absentee.

I think it's a reasonable way for people to be sure there's a paper record, somewhere, of their vote.

Thoughts?

[WilliamPitt]

7. I remember Andy Stephenson being very nervous about this

I did a thing with him in Seattle back a couple of summers ago, where he talked about the electronic voting problem and what can be done. People suggested absentee ballots and he said, "No no no, because..." but I can't for the life of me recall what his specific concern was.

Sorry. Maybe a google search of Andy's published articles will get you an answer. Also, you can go ask in the voting forum. Dollars to donuts they'll have an answer for you.

[EFerrari]

10. I can. Because absentee ballots are counted on tabulators.

Tabulators that are computers, not calculators. They can be rigged easily.

[WilliamPitt]

12. Thank you, dear.

:hug:

[EFerrari]

13. You're the tops, you're the Coliseum.

:hug:

[bobbieinok]

24. there were problems with absentee ballots in 2004

in FL, 1000s were 'lost' in the mail (I think they weren't delivered in time so that people could vote and return them by the deadline)

in IA (I think) AFTER ballots had been mailed to met the dealine, suddenly there were official statements that the ballot and envelope had to be mailed 'just so' (don't remember what the specifics were); if the rules were not rigidly followed, the ballots would be illegal and not counted

[EFerrari]

57. They got us coming and going -- with reg forms as well

as with absentee ballots.

Remember the expat community and the military got shorted as well.

They were very busy in 2004.

[Warren DeMontague]

18. Gotcha. However, in my mind, I've always thought there's a difference

and I'm not the expert on BBV issues, by any stretch- between a paper ballot that is counted by a machine, and a vote that is cast entirely on a screen, where there is no record other than the easily manipulated numbers on a memory card, of what the vote that was cast was.

I vote on optical scan ballots, generally. I understand that a machine is tabulating those votes- but AFAIK, the ballot itself is at least supposed to be held under some kind of security (and I do understand that's not always the reality) and in the event of a recount, at least there's a piece of paper that somewhere won't match up if someone decides to fudge the books, as it were.

Therefore- understanding that probably getting ALL the machines, everywhere, out of the system isn't real feasible by this November- if someone is facing the prospect of being forced to vote on a machine that will leave no physical record of a vote cast, and voting absentee where there will be a record, wouldn't it make sense for those folks to vote absentee? It couldn't be worse than actually voting on a Diebold touch-screen, could it?

Like I said, I'm not an expert on these matters. I don't think my county is going to implement these Diebold machines on a wide scale- but it might be interesting to find out just how large the implementation of these machines McPherson just approved is going to be, and where exactly people may be given the 'opportunity' to 'vote' on them.

[EFerrari]

20. I vote absentee so the issue is dear to me.

We only have the appearance of accountability. When push comes to shove, there should be a per centage of our ballots that could be recounted, right?

Now, look back at the "recount" in Ohio and all the ways THAT was blocked.

Now, think back to the mayoral election and how boxes of ballots were found in the bay . . .

Let's use the tools we have and let's run these machines out of town. Andy was right. On all counts.

[RaleighNCDUer]

47. That's true. And the actual, physical ballot will only be counted

if the election is close enough to demand a recount, at which point the absentee ballots could still be overwhelmed by the polling station votes.

So the game is rigged. But it's the only game in town. We still have to play to win. Opting out is surrender.

Even if they steal it again, if there is a 30 point swing between the exit poll and the vote SOMEONE will take notice.

[Warren DeMontague]

85. Yeah- except, uh, they're doing away with exit polling...

I forgot why. (Hmmm. I wonder)

[eridani]

22. In many states, you can turn in absentee ballots at your precinct--

--polling place. This gets around potential Post Office problems. Never ever vote on a touchscreen if you can help it. Also, doing parallel elections like Judy Alter did in San Diego might be useful. Target them in swing districts.

[GOTV]

62. In some states, such as Ohio,,,

... you are not entitled to vote absentee just because you want to. You need to have a reason. I have no idea how or if they require proof of your reasons.

[Warren DeMontague]

86. in California I'm pretty sure anyone who wants to, can---

(edit: Of course, you have to fill out an application for an absentee ballot in advance, just in case anyone wasn't aware of that)

[Piedras]

87. I'm a permanent absentee voter, in California

I'm a permanent absentee voter in California. My understanding is that any California voter can become a permanent absentee voter. In the 2004 election I hand carried my absentee ballot to the county elections office. Just to be sure it wasn't "lost" in transit. With an absentee ballot turned in, by me, to the elections office I felt more confident it would be counted correctly.

[Poiuyt]

8. Yes, people want to see more Democrats in Congress, but

People tend to like their own representatives and senators. It's always the other guys that they don't like. They hate Congress, but will usually vote for the incumbent.

My Congressional district (WI 8th) is an open one this time. It's too early to see which way it's going to go.

[bowens43]

28. A Democrat will vote for a Republican incumbent?

Then they're not really a Democrat.

[The_Casual_Observer]

9. With the 16 / 15 in mind, it might be hard to do all at once.

However, if they get close, say 10 or so, jr's performance in the next 3 years would almost assure victory by 08.

[WilliamPitt]

11. Yup

Close is a win, a big help in '08. Our chances in the Senate are better, actually. Six GOP seats have incumbents polling below 50%, with Santorum in mortal peril in Pennsylvania. He's been down by double digits for months now.

[Dunvegan]

14. With the wild cards of Rep being indited, or the aging Reps that may...

...suddenly (God forbid bad health happen to anyone) become suddenly unwell enough to run or surcome to illness, we have to say full court press on 2006.

Not ovah until its ovah...and we've done our damndest.

[EFerrari]

15. Did you buy your paper today?

We should write to Rosie and thank him for the big beautiful IMPEACHMENT AD.

:hi:

[Dunvegan]

16. Oh hell yes I surely did! Hung it on my office wall, pronto, too!

Do you think that impeachbush.org is having trouble getting that ad into other papers, or did they advertise here in San Francisco due to the Supervisor's vote to impeach?

[EFerrari]

17. I know for a fact that all papers are losing subscribers

except the NYT who have managed a teeny increase.

But, don't you think Chris's measure helped get us the ad as opposed to Salt Lake?

:)

[Dunvegan]

84. Yes, I think Chris has been very influential in the impeachment movement..

...bless his dear little supervisor heart. :)

[Hamlette]

19. the tragedy is that there are only 16 open seats

out of what, 435? We need a re-do in Congress. Tiny states should have 2 Senators and we need to do something about gerrymandering. It is a huge part of the mess we're in today and there is no way out until 2010. We really do need to control more state legislatures by then.

[HamdenRice]

27. Yes -- my question also -- I cannot believe the polling

which suggests there are only 16 seats that are up for grabs, given Bush's approval ratings.

I think the Democrats should accept a little more risk and go after some so called safe seats with hard hitting campaigns that call out the traitors for what they are.

[Hamlette]

53. ack, bad proofreading

I meant to say: "tiny states should NOT have 2 Senators" and meant: "at least not as many as big (blue?) states."

[eridani]

21. If you are worried about Diebold, remember that--

--the house never, under any circumstances, wins 100% of the time. It wins by just a small enough margin often enough to keep the suckers betting. And that means that a comparatively small number of elections will be targeted for theft. We need to be smart about guessing which elections those are, and taking countermeasures now. Vote suppression is a separate technique, and will be going on all over.

In the Washington state gubernatorial race of 2004, two opscan counts and one hand count were within 0.01% of each other, meaning that no Hursti hack funny stuff was pulled with the memory cards in that one case. (The Snohomish machines cheating for Rossi were another matter.)

[Clarkie1]

23. What I infer from this is...

is that in order for the democrats to get some spine, we need to give them confidence by electing Dem majorities this year.

Is that a correct inference?

[A Simple Game]

88. A majority is worth at least 2 ball sizes.

The Republicans are intimidating the Democrats with very little fear of reprisal because they have the majority. Rules are meaningless, the Republicans love rules because they only apply to the Democrats, change the majority, and that all changes.

Do you think a vice president would tell a member of the opposition party to "go f*** yourself" if that person was in the majority party?

Actually the gain is more like 4 ball sizes, the Democrats gain 2 sizes, and the Republicans lose 2 sizes.

[wildeyed]

25. "Chairman Conyers"

Be still my heart.

I never understand the attitude about no voting if the rep does not do what you like. To me, it always seems like, if you have a choice between bad and worse, you take bad. Then you get off you butt and start to work to change bad to good. Volunteer for something that makes a difference, or run yourself. :shrug:

The democratic party is just a reflection of us. We can change it if we are willing to do the work. We can change our reps if we want to. I have been working on the local level, and just from my short experience, it is worse than I thought it would be. It is a very difficult system to navigate on the local level, but we must learn to navigate it if we really want change. It's hard work, I tell you!

I stand around on street corners with a clipboard begging people to register and vote. I encounter a lot of anger and cynicism about the democratic process. So I will say here what I say there. Please vote. Your party needs you. Your country needs you.

(/my preachy rant code)

[Ufomammut]

26. Likely "wishful thinking" & propaganda

Given how recent "elections" have gone, and the so-called "liberal" press' refusal to question the validity of the outcomes, not to mention how corporate Amerika is 100% behind the fascist Bushco, it makes a great deal of sense for the "news" to begin pimping and promoting this silly notion that the "right" is concerned and worried about future elections.

Believe me, they'll find a way to "spin" the entire repug atrocity. That way, if we make it to another election, and it naturallly doesn't bode well for dems, all of the propaganda pundits-"celebrities" will be discussing the "big" story: how repugs, even after all of the evil shit they've done, still managed to win the support of more Americans. And all the suckers will just sit there and accept it like the right's been able to count on for the past five years. You watch ...count on it.

[bowens43]

29. So are you going to vote?

Or just give up?

[Ufomammut]

30. I'll vote, however....

If all the dems can do is offer up a pathetic "moderate" who is there to kiss ass with the big majority of the semi-retarded, propaganda-chugging "middle America," then yes, I'll still vote, but not for their puppet - I'll go indie as I've done before.

[RaleighNCDUer]

49. Pathetic.

Take your ball and go home, whine a little more.

[GOTV]

63. The other option, besides attacking Ufomammut....

... is to personally go out and find/convert a couple of new Dem voters to replace him.

[RaleighNCDUer]

69. Been doing that for 5 years.

And making it clear to them - former repubs and indies alike - that a vote that is NOT for a dem is a vote FOR the repubs because no indie has a snowball's chance of winning.

And if we don't win

WE LOSE!

[bvar22]

76. Pathetic

Keep supporting Republicans for Democratic seats, and then wonder why our country is in such a mess.
The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[Voltaire99]

92. Wrong. You could learn a lot from Ufomammut.

The critique put forward in Ufommaut's posts is one you would be wise to consider, NCevilDUer.

Unless, of course, you prefer to vote party line and thus seed more support for war, the police state and corporate power. That pauper's diet may satisfy you, but I find it a repellent future.

Let me also urge all those reading that you join Cindy Sheehan in refusing to vote for any candidate who supports the war. Send these politicians a message: you can call yourself a Democrat, a New Democrat, or whatever you please; but if you're Bush-lite, my friend, you don't mean shit to me.

[Laurab]

82. Unfortunately, unless you live in a blue, blue state

you can pretty much count your indie vote as a vote for the repukes. I'm in a blue state, and I still would vote for ANY Dem candidate no matter what, just to get these evil criminals out of office. Just to do my small part in not assisting the repukes in any way, shape or form. It's unfortunate that people think as such purists when we just CANNOT afford to.

ANY Democratic candidate would at least begin to start getting us out of this mess we're in. They would surround themselves with a Democratic administration. No matter WHO it is. How many more lives will it take, how many more criminal acts by this administration, will it take to keep "purists" from having ANY KIND of hand in keeping them in office? It's like biting off your nose to spite your (and a whole lot of other people's) face.

[lonestarnot]

31. VOTING A MUST!

[DallasNE]

32. I Don't Buy The Democrat Gloom And Doom

Why repeat the Republican spin that the Democrats never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

I think things are moving along quite nicely. The latest Gallup poll shows generic Democrats with a 16 point advantage. The Democrats are seizing the opportunity quite nicely, thank you.

Likewise, with these kind of numbers I don't see where picking up 15 seats is "an immense hurdle to clear".

With the Republican's lack of leadership I don't see where they can mount a comeback between now an November. The only hope for them would be an October surprise, which can't be ruled out. But with the current mood, an October surprise could just as well backfire.

My outlook is not gloom and doom. It is that a new day is dawning. I feel good. No, make that great!

[Ufomammut]

34. Denial of the rigged game

The problem is, you're basing your views around a version of political "reality" that only exists in the fairy tales of mainline propaganda...that is, that political events and trends are contigent on public whims and concerns, and that it's not all strategically predetermined irrespective to what the "people" want.

[GOTV]

64. Kerry had a substantial lead at one time too (august)...

... Once the ads/swiftboating starts that advantage can evaporate quickly. Of course if you wait until then to get active and do something about it, it will be too late.

[elf]

33. how many seats do we need in the senate?

:hi:

can somebody tell me, please?

[DallasNE]

36. Senate Is Currently 55-44-1 Republican

The Democrats have more seats to defend this election and there have been more Democrats announce they are retiring. The Democrats would need to hold their seats plus pick up 6 of the 16 Republican held seats as well as picking up the Independent seat in Vermont. This is a pretty steep hill to climb. Picking off 4 seats is a possibility but getting 6 will be super tough. On the other hand, Bush's poll numbers can continue to drop and bring the Senate into play as well. Never say never.

[Lochloosa]

37. 16+5=2006

16 House Seats and 5 Senate seat swing. It is a real possibility.

[CanOfWhoopAss]

43. We have to pick up seven

Not likely to happen but still have to attempt it.

[marions ghost]

35. Good points made Will

Yes of course we must push to get every possible vote in 06. How about you Will-and we here- come up with some arguments to convince those who have been severely turned OFF by the obvious dysfunctional election system, that they still must vote.

I was not shocked at the s/elections of 00, 02, 04. But this was because I had worked within some local campaigns in the 90's and saw firsthand the corruption and unbelievable level of disenfranchisement that existed then. But I DO sympathize with those for who got a real hard lesson about how the system works ONLY when the Bushies hijacked it outright. When people are wrestling with a concept that disturbs their world view they can become depressed and downtrodden to the point of aversion. Sometimes the only way people feel they can take control is to reject the process that has betrayed them. That's what you're dealing with--it may take a lot of positivity to overcome that sense of malaise. Anybody actually working for election reform has the kind of determination it will take to overcome, but a lot of others will just give up on the system. It is important to address this problem of group depression head on. Works like 'group think'-only more negative.

OK, to come up with some arguments that might change attitudes:

1. U said: "...more people voting puts more stress on these systems, and glaring flaws or inaccuracies are more easily recognized." Right-we will really get a chance to see how corrupt the system is, esp re. the e-voting issues, if a LOT of people vote and the vulnerable incumbents all win.

2. More people will be watching how this election is run at the ground level than ever before. Taking notes and taking names. (List groups doing this).

3. EVERY citizen who votes should be prepared to report on how the system worked for them. If there are problems at polling places, EVERY citizen needs to know what to do about that, and do their part reporting anything that does not jive with their OWN picture of how elections should be run. We need citizen watchdogs to create a big picture of where the worst issues are. Everyone can help do this. (Uncle Sam Needs You).

----------------------

Does anyone have more to add? Just saying "Vote! dammit!" isn't enough in the Diebold era IMO. -- After all the whammys of the last 5 years, this doesn't convince skeptics. An approach that takes into account the doubts that people really do feel...may be more effective--certainly it is more effective than showing hostility and frustration towards those who do not see as clearly as we do.

[Dora]

38. Whipcrack sharp! K&R

[madrchsod]

39. according to some

the illinois 6th doesn`t need a "progressive,liberal" democrat because a "leftist democrat" could never take the 6th.i guess that is what the "liberal,progressive,leftist democrats" are up against in our own party-1960`s moderate republican thinking. we will see just what america wants this november, reform or the status quo

[mopinko]

40. bbv and voting

i, too, sometimes despair at the apparent futility of voting in the age of bbv. BUT, remember that at least if you show up, there is a record, in pen, in the poll book, that you were there. maybe not much, but it is something. it is a record. it gives you some standing, legally speaking, should there be some sort of legal action in your area. or should exit polling be used to extrapolate the count in your area, the number of voters is crucial part of that calculation.
god, i feel so pathetic just typing this. but you are counted, even if your vote is not. ya gotta do what you can do.
so vote anyway!

[marions ghost]

42. good point

'you are counted, even if your vote is not" --important to evaluation

[mopinko]

45. it is pathetic, tho.

sigh.

[marions ghost]

55. pathetic yes

the system IS corrupt, there's no denying that.

Gotta deal with the truth about it and still give people enough hope that it can be fixed. NOT easy.
But the truth is always better than pretending that everything's OK.

Despite these valid concerns, I think people will still go out and vote, if for nothing more than they want to do ANYTHING that might even POSSIBLY help get this regime out of power. That will be the majority IMO.

But it also might make sense to find (new) ways to persuade the severely disillusioned and skeptical that this is a volatile situation and non-participation is a losing strategy.

[mopinko]

56. tell them

that if each and every non voter showed up to vote, it would swamp them.

[helderheid]

41. To address your PS - I am worried about evoting BUT that won't stop me

from voting nor should it stop anyone else. I will personally be voting absentee.

[glitch]

44. more people voting puts more stress on these systems

Well said, couldn't agree more. Why make it easier on them? If they have to cheat to win (and they do)
make them cheat to win. Then we can catch them.
Then come the indictments.

"P.S.: There will be, in this thread, a good number of people who will question whether voting is useful at all, given the Electronic voting/Diebold situation. Absolutely undoubtedly legitimate concerns, yes, but I worry that such declarations might convince some that the exercise of voting is pointless. In short, I don't think that problem is an excuse for avoiding the polls. To the contrary, I think more people voting puts more stress on these systems, and glaring flaws or inaccuracies are more easily recognized."

edit: bold

[Bluzmann57]

46. Ok it's been said many many times

And I'll say it one more time. If you don't vote, don't bitch. Not every candidate is going to please every person. Her's an example of what I'm talking about, very briefly. Here in Iowa's First District, we have a soon to be vacated seat, as the current rep is running for Governor. There are three republicans and three Democrats vying for the seat. I don't care what the repubs do, they are all insane anyway, something about one guy not being "conservative" enough, and nonsense like that. The Dem candidates all have some good points as well as some not so good points. Two of them are anti-abortion and do not try and hide it. The third is sorta fuzzy on the Iraq war issue. One guy has some fine ideas for economic development, one guy has a plan for withdrawal of troops immediately, and on and on. So as you can see, not one candidate appeals 100 pct. to me, but rest assured I will support whichever one wins the primary in June. Any of the three is better than the alternative. It is likely somewhat similar where you live, so get out and vote and support the Dem candidate.

[EST]

48. Amen n/t

[savemefromdumbya]

50. Reasons to be nervous

they have plenty to be nervous about - this port thing has almost killed them

[mzmolly]

51. Nice post Will. I say vote in numbers that make theft impossible.

One can't claim Democrats aren't doing their jobs if we citizens refuse to do our part.

[gasperc]

52. 2006 DEMOCRAT .

Enough said

people want change and they will get change when they vote democrat, they will get the change the country needs, they will get good, honest hard working change

2006 DEMOCRAT.

W-Worst Ever

[redqueen]

54. Voting definitely helps to shine a light on election irregularities.

I hate to think the threat of electronic voting issues is causing people to avoid the polls.

I hope you don't get tired of that rant... something tells me we may need to see it again a few more times over the next several months.

[Fiendish Thingy]

58. They will have to steal my vote, I won't stay home...

and give it up for nothing.
Having said that, I'm still very disillusioned with the Dem status quo. That's why progressive challengers like Lamont are so critical during the primary season. Sure wish Cindy would've run against DiFi... The fighting Dems also represent a chance for change in the party status quo, even if some in the DLC have gotten behind some of them.
I like your frame Will, that a vote for (insert name of your local timid, status quo Dem) is a vote for Conyers.

Having said that, I am being VERY selective about my financial contributions...

[motocicleta]

59. I absolutely love voting. I do give some thought time to time to voting

for greens or indies, because I get pissed about the mainstreaming dems, but I always in the end vote democratic. I cannot comprehend not voting. Even in the age of bbv, I have to vote in every possible election. It's so incredibly easy and fun, the cynicism overwhelming the rest of my life somehow doesn't affect my actual voting behavior. Do I think I count? Not really. But I certainly would rather never, ever feel like I should regret not doing it. And I know I will never regret voting.
I adore voting. I love voting. I heart voting. Bring it on!

[meowomon]

60. I Will Always Vote!

For the love of God, women only got the right less than a hundred years ago! I will always vote whether my vote is counted or not. We can't let the ultra-right win by default again.

[Higans]

73. Welcome to DU!

:hi: :patriot:

[al bupp]

61. Very Well Put, Mr. Pitt

Kicking & nominating

[Mrspeeker]

65. yeah Diebold rigged elections

scare the heck out of me too.

My Question ----> How could they possible lose? LOL

The Answer ----> The so called liberal media thats owned by a few people who are NEOCONS, would love to paint a picture of hope, when at the same time stomping that hope out. One sure way to win is to create the problem, then create the opposition to the problem, and then of course create the only solution to the problem.

[warrens]

66. We don't need to run the table

There are plenty of Rethug incumbants in major trouble. We have to isolate a couple per state and pour our resources into crushing them. I am pretty sure that we are going to pick up at least two seats in Illinois, with a good shot at a third. Only one of those is open; there are several vulnerable Repukes, but we chose two.

[GOTV]

68. In my mind, this is the lesson here

The odds that democrats will pick up 15 of those 16 seats are terribly thin. It's possible but not very likely.

The GOP knows that as do I. Yet, here they are, taking some extraordinary measures to make that slim chance even slimmer. Even when their victory is the most likely outcome, they are still working hard towards their victory.

This is how parties win.

The current good polling trends should not give any Dem a comfortable relaxed feeling towards the upcoming election. The majority of Libs/Dems/Progressives that I knew in 2004 did not show up to work for Kerry, Moveon, Act or anyone else. Iraq was a mess, We knew that Bush mislead us on WMDs and that the patriot act was taking our rights. We all knew that and too many were convinced that Kerry was an easy win.

Now is the time to start fighting. Find a Dem/Lib/Prog group in your area, join and be willing to work.

[wildeyed]

71. Amen to that. n/t

[WI_DEM]

72. Thanks for the information and also the point on voting

one of my pet peeves is anytime I or somebody else begins a thread about the '06 or '08 election somebody or several people jump in to say it is no use unless because of the GOP stealing elections. Like you said, a legitamite concern, but if that is the case in every election why did the GOP lose those governors races in VA and NJ--obviously they needed to have a shot in the arm victories would give them. And Why are they losing all these state legislative races? If enough people vote we can win.

[Generator]

74. What I want

(and I know probably won't happen) is for someone-some leader some ONE to be there for us IF our votes aren't counted. IF some are not given the opportunity to vote. I want someone in the leadership to be there to represent the voters and not be afraid of getting people in the streets if they think they have been diebolded. (The Ukraine anyone?) I don't want another "everything looks like we are winning, the polls say were winnning" and then it all magically vanishes and I'm told I have I have to change MY values. I was here every damn day in the summer of 2004 and the night of the election and every day until January 6th in that election 2004 forum. I want someone that will speak and lead for us. I'm not going to listen to "oh well I guess we really did lose thought it seems impossible, so suck it up-on to 2008! on to 2010!" There has to be a point where no more is allowed otherwise the people-not just ones like I are going to know that not only does the leadership not reflect them, even the votes they cast don't. That kind of a disconnect is deadly to a free society. I don't know after 2000,2004 how much more we can be expected to BELIEVE.

And I agree the more that are invested in voting-the more that can be done to put pressure on the system and be the protest of the failed system. I kinda think that's what those lines until 4am in Ohio said to me.

[alcibiades_mystery]

75. You're getting it wrong

There are 16 OPEN SEATS, not 16 seats that will be contested, total. Open seats just means the incumbent won't be running for it.

We could win plenmty of the races against GOP incumbents as well. We do not have to run the table.

[Independent_Liberal]

83. I hope we get a margin like this...

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 246 Democratic/189 Republican. SENATE 58 Democratic/41 Republican/1 Independent. GOVERNORSHIP 30 Democratic/20 Republican.

Perhaps that's just wishful thinking, but you never know. We may be able to get something beyond our expectations. I think a few Republican Congresspeople, Senators and Governors may re-register as Independents, Greens and Libertarians. I think some will take notice of the demands that people want a third party.

[roseBudd]

77. They can't cheat if the exit polls aren't even close...

hopefully instead of lawyers the dems will have MSCEs at every poll.

[progressoid]

78. Oooh, I can see blood coming out of the ears of Fux news heads

when Conyers starts lining up the hearings!
:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

[Independent_Liberal]

81. Let the bleeding begin!

:D

[Independent_Liberal]

79. Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, John Conyers!

I love the sound of that. I can't wait for the day when we can all call him Mr. Chairman.

:)

[Independent_Liberal]

80. BTW, I actually think we'll see a landslide victory.

I think the Dems will get big margins in both the House and Senate.

[Virginian]

89. Half a loaf is better than nothing.

Maybe the Dem congressman has annoyed a constituent, but how much more annoying would/could a Republican congressman be?

We don't have room right now to be picky about Democrats in the general elections. Be thankful they are willing to step up and run for election. It takes more guts than I could ever muster. Be picky in the primaries. Once we have a majority, then we can start being a little more selective.

Vote in all elections and sooner or later you may get what you want.
If you don't vote, don't complain about who your elected officials are. You surrendered your rights when you had a chance to make a difference and didn't do anything.

[LibDemAlways]

90. About Gallegly

I live in his district. He's a reliable chimp ass kisser. We might as well send a rubber stamp to Washington and save whatever it is he's costing the taxpayers. He said he was bowing out because of health issues, and I believe him. He's only 62, but he looks terrible these days. Unfortunately we have no really strong Dem opposition. Jill Martinez's website is basically "under construction" except for a bunch of pictures of her family. It's pathetic. Gallegly was coerced to get back in because he erroneously thought when he pulled out of the race on Friday that there would be five days for one of his cronies to file to become his replacement. That wasn't the case and the nomination would have gone to Tenenbaum who has some sort of feud going with Gallegly. I predict Gallegly will resign during his next term and a special election will hand the keys to his feifdom over to some other wingnut like Tom McClintock who is currently running for Lt. Governor.

[Beelzebud]

91. The way our party leadership is handling things...

The way our party leadership is handling things, they don't have much to be worried about...