Why is there any question about the outcome of November's election???

[Cyrano]

Yes, we all know they can steal it again through Diebold and ES&S machines, among others. And also through "felons lists," intimidation of minority voters, and "lost ballots." They used all of these tactics in 2000, 20002 and 2004, but a race has to be close in order for this crap to work.

What I find incredible is that there are still enough people out there willing to vote for a Republican. Any Republican. (During the senate vote for Justice Alito, didn't everyone finally figure out that there's no such thing as a "moderate" Republican.)

If they manage to hold the house and senate, that would tell us that there are enough brain dead people here, that it's time to give up any hope of a return to democracy in our lifetimes.

I say to any of you casts a vote for any of these vermin, you'll end up with the country you deserve. Unfortunately, the rest of us will be stuck with the results of your criminal stupidity.

[GodlessBiker]

1. Because people haven't voted yet.

[sui generis]

5. I think there's confusion

about that thing we're not talking about.

You know, that "any vote withheld from a Democrat is a vote given to a republican" nonsense.

I read Edward's great populist "morals" speech today and it left me empty. It left me empty because we have a lawyer going on about the morality of social programs and not once mention the morality of social equality. I read him go on about how he prays every day, and how he's a religious man. I read a crafted, manufactured speech and it has me worried.

Why is it we can't get a Big Think inclusive open political warrior to excite people about possibility instead of using moldy "morality" arguments to prey upon our feelings of being socially oppressed? I agree with everything he said, but I don't think his "morals" lesson was complete.

I would advise Edwards to straighten up and talk straight. The people you're talking to aren't stupid. And if Edwards for all his populist social glory were to be nominated today and he answered "moral values" critics on the topic of equal marriage by saying he agrees that gays should not be married or have their civil unions recognized in every state and the federal government, then color me vermin.

I'm sick of it. If you want the full citizen votes of all of your base, then support the full citizen rights of all of your base.

[leftofthedial]

2. hating repukes does not equal loving Dems.

the Democrats have underwhelmed most of the "swing" voters I know, with lukewarm responses to repuke scandals and failure to present a clear plan for the future.

I'm not saying that Dems have no plans. I'm saying most people haven't heard it.

[Zhade]

6. Take it from this indie, you're spot-on.

This is quite possibly the most criminal administration, ever, and I hear only faint murmurings from the party, not the wholesale rage there should be from them.

[Robbien]

11. True. And reverse it. What would it take for a Dem. to vote Repub?

Okay almost everyone here dislikes Lieberman. Don't like him and wouldn't vote for him. Does that mean a vote for the Republican candidate?

More than likely, not.

[IndyOp]

3. A RACE DOES NOT NOT NOT HAVE TO BE CLOSE TO BE STOLEN!!

It is JUST as easy to change a 30/70 win to a 70/30 loss using ANY technology
...as it is to turn a 48/52 win to a 52/48 loss!

Go watch the movie VOTERGATE <http://www.votergate.tv/> -- about half way in Bev Harris shows Howard Dean how to 'edit' an election on a Central Tabulator. ALL FORMS OF VOTING use Central Tabulators that can be HACKED in less than 5-minutes.

If THERE ARE ballots/receipts to be recounted and
If those ballots are recounted NO MATTER WHAT THE ELECTION result then
Dems will win with landslides across the nation at all levels.

If there aren't paper ballots/receipts, or
If those ballots/receipts are only recounted if the result is CLOSE, then
Dems will LOSE all across the nation.

Yes, some will win because the system to commit fraud is an insane patchwork of methods and people -- but we WILL lose overall if there aren't paper ballots/receipts and/or if they are not automatically recounted no matter the result.

[Zhade]

4. Gah, please don't use that freeper Harris as a source.

I once trusted that lying sack of crap, and she AIN'T a reliable source.

Yes, what she worked on is true, but her nutso "but Dems steal elections too!" lies don't help the cause.

But to address your point, you are correct - all one need do is access the central tabulator, and POOF - stolen election, regardless of how close the race was.

[IndyOp]

15. I am sorry to have mentioned the 'other B' - but the video is compelling

We don't have to take 'B's' word for anything -- the video shows central tabulator hacking and more!

[sui generis]

8. just the same, we can't win by merely not losing

we will have zero mandate.

Whoever gets out there has to be exciting, a leader, a fighter, and furthermore someone who passionately believes in his own message, and not some dodgy old dust-farting ent like Kerry. Pardon my color.

We have every possible card in our hand right now, but it's still possible to fuck up the card game if we play it wrong.

[IndyOp]

16. Kerry isn't my fav, but I won't bash him - HE WON...

If the election hadn't been stolen then everyone - no matter their opinion of him before the election - would now perceive him as having a Golden Glow of a winner...

It isn't his fault that the election was stolen.
Is it his fault he did not stand up and fight to defend the election victory WE delivered... Well, he should've fought harder - at least as hard as Al Gore did.

[sui generis]

20. but the fact is he didn't win

there are always going to be cheaters and dishonorable people, but for someone to win with a landslide rather than just 51 percent of the vote overcomes those facts. The issue is not winning. It is trouncing. We're so indistinguishable from the right on being public opinion coached and polled and plucked and photo-opped that we're indistinguishable to people who DON'T care about anything but charisma and charm, and there are a whole bunch of those who want another "Kennedy" with vision and drive and charisma.

Sorry for my humor (not "bashing"); I really believe that Kerry is a much better senator than a president and to be good at either requires an entirely different kind of person than could be good at both.

We need a leader who has great intuition, fast on his or her feet, and someone who can speak with clarity and conviction and compassion and fairness in a way that reminds us that we are all Americans and we all need to work together to lift each other up.

That person won't be talking about "morals" or raising the living wage by a nickel an hour or making private healthcare more affordable only for income qualified poor. That person won't be waffling on the war, on our national debt, on our priorities as a nation and our obligation to the people of this nation to be able to feed and clothe and house their families, to raise them in health, to pursue happiness, and to retire safely and well in our golden years, instead of having to decide between food and medicine, between food and paying the electric bill, between food and having a place to live.

That person won't be letting religious organizations that rake in hundreds of millions of dollars a year not pay some form of organizational taxes, yet take away federal grants and money and federally guaranteed exceptions to our basic values of non-discrimination and equality.

That person will have an agenda, a plan, and a fair and memorable answer for every idiot neocon self-serving argument that the republicans will put forward in any town hall meeting, in any Swift Boat attack, in any back column editorial.

That's what we need, and that's not Kerry. Unfortunately, it's not anyone yet.

[IndyOp]

22. Your attitude that it is acceptable for the Rethugs to steal 2%

of the votes is anethema to me. It is entirely unacceptable to argue that if someone doesn't win by enough to 'cover the cheating' then they should not win the election. My point is this: Debating policy and personality is not useful when we are criticizing policy and personalities of people who have 'lost' -- when they actually WON. Win means 50% + 1 vote.

Also: Kerry got 4-8 million more votes nationwide than * did according to Mark Crispin Miller. I think more. Sorry I can't document it - Crispin Miller and Steve Freeman (statistician at UPenn) are working on a paper now. In order words: Kerry did win by a landslide and the Rethugs stole it anyway.

Finally: I desperately WANT someone to talk about morals -- I am a values voter. Just not Republican values. And... Kerry's "lack of excitement" is due to the same force as Gore's "bragging and lying" and Dean's "scream" -- if you believe any of it you are drinking the corporate media Kool-Aid. Isn't it an interesting coincidence that none of these Dems have "plans" and none of them "connect with the real people" and none of them "have what it takes" -- corporate media Kool-Aid.

Media reform and election reform = Dem Majority.

[sui generis]

23. my "attitude" is what you're in denial about

While you may be a values voter, there are lots of attitude voters out there.

You put words in my mouth with the poop about "if someone doesn't win by enough to 'cover the cheating' then they should not win the election." - that was your extrapolation and not what I said.

You seem to live in normative world. The fact is there are untold numbers of people who never tune into the news on politics, have no interest in political blogs, don't get their news from anything but talk radio, and are generally underinformed or not informed at all, and they still vote.

What are we doing to talk to them? They proudly proclaimed in the last election that 60% of responders voted for the candidate that had the most "gut appeal", regardless of the issues. The election before that a similar number placed charisma highest on their priorities for a candidate. These are not smart informed people, but they vote based on their "intuition", and we're being stupid to deny it.

Values voters are as anathema to me as charisma voters are to you. The fact is I don't want jingoistic catch phrases used to beat us up. "Values" and "moral values" and "morality" is all crap to me because most "values" voters have the value that I shouldn't be allowed to be married, and we don't have time in a campaign debate to carefully split hairs. We need bold, positive leadership and style, or we're denying that people follow surface when they have no knowledge of substance. Oh and we need substance too - but my point is we need both.

[IndyOp]

24. Yes we need to change the system so that more substance comes through...

The corporate media (and the population that laps up their dreck) keeps the issues that we consider during elections extremely restricted. The Dems & Rethugs are virtually the same party -- no one stands up for labor (the people).

Also: We allow campaigns to get away with 'peripheral' means of persuasion -- image ads, catch phrases, big words & numbers... The public relations/advertising industry does untold damage to our nation. Chomsky describes our 'illusory Democracy' in compelling ways: We are sold our President like we sold are toothpaste.

When ourselves (and our neighbors) -- so that citizens demand more from the media and representatives -- then we will elections based on substance, rather than surface.

You can see from what I have written above that I am sympathetic towards your concerns about 'the people' and 'the candidates' -- but, again, my point is that there are additional issues that prevent us from seeing past and present candidates clearly: (1) The corporate media will *not* give a Dem a decent shake. (2) Stolen elections reinforce the belief that Dems can't lead, Dems are losers.

Also - by 'values' voter - I don't mean what most people mean. I am sort of trying to 'steal the phrase back' by using it mean that I vote on someone's record of behavior, not what they say. Hitler's speeches contained a lot of inspiring rhetoric - we need to turn away from self-absorption and dedicate ourselves to helping one another. Obviously, one cannot judge a person by what they say. My values revolve around an urgent need for a revolution of values -- away from greed and materialism; toward equal rights and decent treatment for all. I am 100% behind gay marriage and gay adoption, single-payer healthcare, ending war forever by dismantling the standiing military, excellent eduction for all people of all ages... I vote for the candidate who takes actions that reflect my values.

Finally - regarding my poop - I hear from all kinds of people all the time that Kerry should've won big enough that he could've overcome any election fraud that happened. I can only conclude from that, that people think 'a little election fraud' is normal and we shouldn't make a big deal about it. I could not agree more. Any candidate who presents themselves honestly, instead of shaping their every opinion to match the polls, instead of saying nothing so as not to upset anyone -- any such candidate is not going to get 60% or 70% of the vote. A very good candidate who receives 50% + 1 vote should be the person who gets the position.

[sui generis]

26. thanks for the reply!

enjoyable - I think we pretty much agree down the line. I may likely have a naive assumption about how far we can take populist rhetoric, where I always optimistically see the outcome of a deft populist approach as a landslide.

In more cynical terms I think of sales momentum - if you get enough people physically nodding their heads "yes" in a sales pitch it sets up a habit of assent and establishes an assenting positive majority for people to cling to. I think even many of the right are tired of being told that they're scared or told that they're outraged.

Sadly, a strategy like that means we're still not selling substance or real cultural values first. Before this next election a charismatic populist leader who can speak with authority and leadership and avoid the tactics of fear mongering that republicans habitually use is the one who will get those people who wouldn't know a social value if it hit them in the head unless it affected their daily lives personally. I personally believe we need to start grooming those skills now in the candidates who we want in office, and who we want to remain in office.

Healthcare and energy hits just about everyone - and stopping malpractice lawsuits and strip mining canada for oil-shale is not going address the very real problems that people have to overcome today, and tomorrow, and the day after in their personal lives. We need to offer short term solutions as well as long term vision, and we need to be first to market with our detailed plans and the idea that our plans are a work in progress while pointing out that the other side doesn't have a plan at all. And in comparison we need to point out that these are not new needs, and the republicans have had eight years to address them and have failed miserably.
We need to be prepared to accuse the other side of being irrelevant and of being failures at everything they've touched, and hand out a list.

I'm probably a lousy armchair political strategist, but I want a good old fashioned non-decorus political fight to the death, led by someone who excites people with possibility and hope, who fights like a lion and not like a weasel.

[natrat]

9. i will never forget 04

it was surreal knowing they would steal it, and then just waiting for the moment when you realize the how and when. So when the exit polls were showing one thing in ohio, and an hour later the networks were showing the opposite ,a sad smile came over my face. Who knows, perhaps now that they have stolen so much $ and see the coming implosion they will just give it up.Uh.....not.

[bullimiami]

13. ANY ELECTION CAN BE STOLEN ...

to me this seems obvious proof that the totals were flipped to the tune of 30+% change
...and nothing was ever done about it. nothing.


http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=443&Itemid=113


some of the significant paragraphs.....


For the 2005 election, some 41 additional Ohio counties (of 88) were switched to Diebold touchscreen machines. Despite polls showing overwhelming voter approval, two electoral reform issues went down improbable defeat. Issue Two, meant to make voting easier, and Issue Three, on campaign finance reform, were shown by highly reliable Columbus Dispatch polls to be passing handily.

The Dispatch was within 0.5% on Issue One, a bond issue, and has rarely been significantly wrong in its many decades of Ohio polling. And even opponents of Issues Two and Three conceded that they were highly likely to pass.

On the Sunday before the Tuesday 2005 election, the Dispatch predicted Issue Two would pass by a vote of 59% to 33%, with about 8% undecided. But Tuesday's official vote count showed Issue Two failing with just 36.5% in favor and 63.5% opposed. For that to have happened, the Dispatch had to have been wrong on Issue Two's support by more than 20 points. Nearly half those who said they would support Issue Two would have had to vote against it, along with all the undecideds.

cont....


My question is ... What are we prepared to do this time if the election fraud is so obvious it can not be explained or joked away? Sit in denial and take it like we have been, while the crooks again run off with the loot, or take it to the streets and demand justice?

[Marnieworld]

19. exactly

If they are hacking results in real time it doesn't matter what they are. one number is just as good as any other when you are changing it.

[Minnesota Libra]

7. Excuse???? The races will NOT have to be close to steal them. There.....

.....are all kinds of ways to steal an election with everything from poll workers mysteriously being sick to "reprogrammed voting software".

The FIRST RULE OF LIFE is NEVER EVER FOR ANY REASON count your chickens before they have fully hatched.:tinfoilhat:

[Duer 157099]

10. I think the Bush administration did such a thorough job

of looting and pillaging this country, that quite frankly, there's nothing left for them to steal. I don't know why they'd want power because after this, it's all just a clean-up effort and it ain't gonna be pretty.

Whoever is in power for the next dozen or so years will have one hell of a row to hoe, and will be blamed for the pain the will be endured by those who have yet to feel it.

[debbierlus]

12. Because they own the voting machines and the voting machine vendors

I would not be worried a wit, if we had an honest election process.

But, we don't.

I am looking this to be the year that the voting fraud issue comes into the mainstream.

[Marr]

14. Here's the sad fact.

All you have to do to win an election in this country is convince corporate America that they'll make alot more money if you're elected. The election doesn't have to be close. They'll tell everyone it's close no matter what the facts are.

[European Socialist]

17. If half of the voters could vote Chimp in 04--anything could happen in 06.

[EFerrari]

18. The Thuggery would be creamed in a clean election.

Even Fox is reporting Junior @ 33% approval!

HAVA (Help America Vote Act aka "Hinder American Votes Act") is being implemented ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.

That means, new voter reg databases the easier to disqualify YOU, my dear, AND shiney new voting machines ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.

We have to fight these bastards now with everything we have or can think of.

[WI_DEM]

21. because most people when asked approve of their own representative

even if they disapprove of congress as a whole. Also, redistricting in this country has limited the number of vulnerable seats. Democrats need a tidal wave like the GOP had in '94 to win back congress.

[All50inBlue]

25. not a chance...

we're gonna pick up 3-5 in the Senate and 10-12 in the House

for sure!

[Dinger]

27. I Agree

But how do we ensure that we win, and win big? I know that isn't fair, but we better have Dems with spine, or we're sunk.

[Jane Eyre]

28. Because these are lots of local contests, not a national referendum

Bush isn't on the ballot. At least not officially. The Democrats have to make sure that every Republican running for office this year is associated with George "33% Approval" Bush at the same time that every Republican is trying to deny that they ever met the guy.

Then there are all the little and big things that can make a difference in a Congressional District-sized election. Like federal money pouring into the district and the Republican incumbent standing there with the check in every photo-op. Or "faith-based" funds that have been used to bribe local preachers of every race and denomination. Or districts that have been drawn packed with so many right-wing morons that there is no chance of a Democratic victory and probably not even a sane Democratic candidate.