Are you concerned?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

Poll question: Are you concerned?

Are you concerned about the outcome of the presidential election in two days time? Do you think an Obama victory is certain, or are you still worried?

[Newsjock]

1. I am not concerned that Obama's lead is legitimate

I am, however, concerned that an "external event" could come into play. And there's not a damn thing I can do about it. So I will have two more sleepless nights -- and, quite possibly, right up through inauguration day.

[plaintiff]

Do you think there's a chance of a repeat of 2000...no clear result for weeks?

That's my worst nightmare.

[Newsjock]

12. Depends on how much of an asshole McCain is

His side could theoretically file legal challenges (with or without merit) to tie things up for weeks. It's not like he has any integrity left to protect at this point, so he might as well go all-in.

[RJ Connors]

13. Absolutly, or even worse.

These people, Republicans, have demonstrated in two presidential elections now, that they have the willingness and the machinery to change the outcome of elections. They have spent a lot of time now building up and consolidating their power over the American people.

I do not expect them to just fade quietly. It is not in their nature.

On Edit:

If you haven't done so yet, vote. This really could be the most important election in your lifetime.

[Buzz Clik]

2. Anxious and a bit impatient. But worried would be a bit strong.

[TwilightZone]

3. Not worried.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7711616&mesg_id=7711616

:)

[newfie11]

4. If the election was honest I wouldn't be worried

But the last several elections were not and again we hear about machines switching votes to repugs. That's why I am worried.

[EFerrari]

5. Anyone familiar with our wretched election systems is concerned.

That doesn't involve handwringing but it should involve being ready to respond to dirty tricks.

[plaintiff]

6. I am. Very. I was concerned in 2000 and they said I was just paranoid.

Trust me, I'd prefer paranoid.
:shrug:

[nxylas]

7. Not gonna misunderestimate the Republican election-stealing machine

I'm fairly confident that Obama can remain outside "Diebold Range", though I refuse to count my chickens before they're hatched, and all the happy talk in the world is unlikely to change that, unless it's backed up with something solid and not just "power of positive thinking" bullshit.

[JJ]

8. I was not concerned in 2000

I knew Al Gore would beat that idiot from Texas.

I was not concerned in 2004, I knew that people wouldn't fall for the same nonsense, and that they wouldn't dare steal it again.

Gee, should I be concerned or not?

Nah, they certainly wouldn't try to steal a third one.


My name is Ostrich, and I am Democrat.

[sellitman]

14. Please make this a stand alone post.

People here have very short memories.

[Swamp Rat]

9. Geauxbama!!!

[RJ Connors]

10. But then again, I am always concerned. n/t

[Sebastian Doyle]

11. Until every last one of those fucking "voting" machines has been smashed, I will remain "concerned"

But I believe the turnout will override the fraud. I just hope the turnout is the best in the states where Senate seats can be won. And semi-selfishly, in my own state. Because I live far too close to the governor's mansion to put up with the stench of Dino Rossi. (it's bad enough his best friends the BIAW stink up the neighborhood)

[TroglodyteScholar]

15. If my username is to be trusted, I am concerned. n/t

[trof]

16. I am so goddamed snakebit and gun shy I'm afraid to hope.

Three times I've gone to bed thinking my guy had won, only to wake up the next morning and find out the other guy 'won'.

2000 with Gore, 2004 with Kerry, and 2006 with Siegelman.
I feel like I'm living under my own black cloud, politically.
:-(

[Mike 03]

17. I'm not concerned about the numbers at all. But I'm very cognizant of

the deceit that transpires in battle states like FL and OH, and I don't like the threats some on the right have made, including threats by Arlen Spectre, Warren Rudman, or (somebody Danforth), that they are going to try to challenge the outcome on legal grounds. That not only concerns me, it infuriates me.

My hunch is this will be a landslid, blow-out mandate, in which case anyone attempting to challenge the outcome on legal grounds would simply look like a bitter idiot.

But they have proven they will stop at nothing to derail Democracy.

So I guess my answer is "No," and "Yes"