Do we have a chance in HELL of electing a Democrat for President?

[jus_the_facts]

Does anyone still believe we have any chance at all for a FAIR election in hindsight of what's gone on with our elections since 2000?

....I personally don't think so and frankly it baffles me how anyone can just overlook what's gone on with our elections and continue to cheer lead how we have a chance in '06 and '08....I mean DAMN...it's obvious to me there's been major FRAUD goin' on with our election process...and it will only get worse not better...and yes I am cynical but how can you not be in light of the last 5 years...and personally I now have to think that it's self defeating NOT to see there's no chance of winning as I've watched everyone around this place get their hopes and souls crushed by the RIGHT for over 3 years now...so just tell me HOW CAN WE WIN?

By the way...the tens of thousands who were relocated to other states after Katrina hit my home state of Louisiana makes me even more cynical as to their right to vote bein' allowed where they are now as well.

[democracyindanger]

1. Not with that attitude.

[jus_the_facts]

6. democracy in danger....that says it all...yet my attitude is wrong?

.....go figure!?

[tx_dem41]

25. So I assume you won't be voting next November since you don't..

believe in the system?

[jus_the_facts]

29. Don't assume...makes an ass out of u and me.....

....kinda like the last two presidential elections did.

[tx_dem41]

30. So if read your implication correctly, you really do believe in the system

but you're trying to convince other DUers not to believe.

Hmmmmmm.......

[jus_the_facts]

31. No just stating facts........

.....not attempting to *convince* anyone of seeing reality...it's THERE whether or not you want to see it or believe it.

[nvliberal]

99. No. It's people like you who live in complete denial

that our system is screwed.

Anybody who thinks this bunch can be ousted in 2006 and 2008 is living in a fantasy land.

When we lose seats next year, which we will, and when we lose in 2008, which we will, I will certainly look forward to MORE tired posts and threads about how Democrats need a better strategy in winning elections, how they must move to the center or to the left, and blah, blah, blah, blah.

All the while the fascists--and that's what the Republican Party has become--are laughing their asses off.

[DJ MEW]

2. we have a shot unless diebold voting machines are used again.

[tx_dem41]

3. To the people that vote NO....a question.....

if you believe it...are you going to vote anyway? If so...why?

[tandoori]

55. Ofcourse I will vote......but the EVM will not count it.............n/t

[warrens]

4. It has to be close for them to steal it

And I don't think it'll be even close to close.

[AntiCoup2K4]

58. I don't think it was close in 2004.

Mathematically it was impossible for the Chimp to win. Even before November, he had lost chunks of the conservative base from every possible subgroup. Fiscal conservatives, obviously, as his spending is out of control. Small government types. Isolationists who couldn't support the war. Libertarians who normally vote Republican for the same reason Greens vote Democratic (or have in the past). Even some of the religious right turned on him because of a few court decisions.

Major conservative papers and magazines refused to endorse the monkey. Some of them even endorsed Kerry.

New voter registrations were double the usual amount and turnout on election day was abnormally high everywhere. These people didn't get off their asses and vote because they LIKED the way things were going.

No way Junior won. No possible way it could add up.

I'm convinced the Diebold machines are rigged for a close outcome no matter what the actual results are. Why wouldn't they be? As long as they're rigged, they could be coded to produce a 51-49 result.

Most close elections are settled by that margin, are they not? ;)

(anything in the 50-50 range is subject to a recount anyway)

[Democrats_win]

5. No, Today's American Republican wouldn't vote for water in a fire.

[RagingInMiami]

7. I am very cynical about elections since 2000

The democrats really need to ensure that they don't get screwed again. And I still haven't heard them make any fuss about it and we're a year away from the mid-term elections.

I wouldn't be surprised if we wake up after election day and realize we've been screwed again.

[ClassWarrior]

8. You're right. I'm just going to give up.

NOT. :grr:

NGU.

[tex-wyo-dem]

9. If the country remains divided 50/50, like every poll seems to show...

then NO the Dems will likely not be able to win.

If Dems run another extremely popular Bill Clinton type, then yes they can win.

I agree that our election system is corrupt and vulnerable, but if pre-election polls show a clear favorite (greater than 5 points), then I sincerely doubt that they would try to steal another one...it would be too obvious.

Close elections is what enables them to be stolen.

[annabanana]

10. Yes, IF... (and it's a doozy)

We can get voter verified paper ballots to be the ballot of record, regardless of system

OR

...the margin is just too big to steal...

[jus_the_facts]

24. there in lies the conundrum......

....and it's a WHOPPER of a conundrum.

[WePurrsevere]

49. True but it IS possible and we need to concentrate on the possible or we..

may simply sink into depression and inaction.

Even if we can't get verifiable paper ballots pushed for all states (and I'm hoping we CAN since there's absolutely NO reason why even electronic voting can't have a verifiable paper trail) how big the margin is will make a huge difference since they safely only rig it if the race is very close. With all that's going down with the Republicans I truly feel that the wind will be at out backs and IF the Dem party doesn't royally screw it up somehow we have a very good chance of winning back control in '06 and winning the White house back in '08.

[TheFarseer]

111. Just a though on that "if the margin is too big" theory

Didn't some Nazi say, people will believe a big lie even more than a little lie?

One more thought: Remember the famous headline "Dewey defeats Truman"? The margin in that election after the ballots were counted was not even close. Sooooooooo, IF Dewey would have committed massive voter fraud, people would have believed he won without question. If Repubs can get the media on their side(hard to imagine I know) and commission a few rigged polls, they could steal an election that wasn't even very close.

[Fovea]

11. If we run a progressive and fight like hell

we will win with so large a margin that it cannot be smoke screened.

[Union Thug]

12. Maybe.. but we need a no bullshit, power punching..

..take no prisoners candidate that will bludgeon the opposition into oblivion when faced with the likes of the swift boat wack-jobs

[MrModerate]

13. Sure we do . . . by attracting enough votes so the races . . .

Aren't close enough to steal. What the 'Licans learned from Florida 2000 is that any close race can be stolen (it helps if the SCOTUS is in your pocket, of course).

Kerry-Bush was close enough to steal and even then, the statistical analysis is <pretty close> to definitive that it was stolen. They can't go much further without even the presstitutes having to sit up and take notice.

But win big, and they can't steal it -- and then if we can take back more Secretaries of State jobs, the opportunities for fraud will shrink.

Eventually the 2004 fraud WILL break -- there had to be enough people involved that someone will speak eventually.

And then we'll have them. Joe and Jill voter won't go for them again.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

14. Yes, of course we do.

We did it in 1992 and 1996. They haven't suddenly taken over every single voting booth since then. I know we all think there were shennanigans, but frankly, there have been plenty of accusations from the OTHER side, as well. There seems to be a lot of Post Election Traumatic Disorder going on here at DU. Almost superstition! Don't turn all your power over to these people! They are not some unmoveable super force that cannot be reckoned with. They are not the Borg!

They have fucked up and fucked up big and they will pay for it.

[jus_the_facts]

17. I can only hope that I'm wrong....

...yet time and time again the *process* proves me correct in my presumption of it's corruption. :(

[TallahasseeGrannie]

21. Not every time

Think back. Was Clinton convicted? Nope.

The pendulum swings. But if you give up it stays on the other side a really long time!

[MrModerate]

20. Well, I hope you're right . . .

But they've been fucking up for some time with impunity.

And while they haven't taken over every booth, they've refined their vote-stealing technology quite a bit since '96. Hell, in 2004, they padded Schimpanski's numbers in California just so he'd win the pop as well as the electoral. And CA had a Dem as Secretary of State!

Like a lot of the posters have said -- we need to win big to win at all, and when we do, then we'll track down the fraudsters and make them pay. They'll be in court until they die of old age.

And the people will make them pay by not voting for them.

[tx_dem41]

26. Great post, Grannie. n/t

[BeFree]

68. Post Election Traumatic Disorder going on here at DU.

Well, lets see..... some believe the Dems won the last two elections. Some think we lost, fair and square. That's a big divide. An abyss, practically.

We are divided. Right where they want us. Some of us think the current officeholders are there illegitimately. Others think they were seated fairly. What's wrong with us?

If they really fucked up big, then why are we so divided?

[kster]

15. We could if we

Start doing this

"Electronic voting draws protest"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x396896

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x396881#396882

[dolstein]

16. I'm afraid the Democratic Party may have entered a liberal death-spiral

The base of the party has dwindled to the point where a relatively small group of left-wing activists get to choose our nominee. This group is so liberal that they actually thought John Kerry represented a moderate, sensible alternative to Howard Dean. So the end result is that you get a nominee who is unacceptable to the electorate as a whole, more people leave the party, and the remaining group becomes even more hard core left-wing.

Frankly, I'm amazed that Clinton was able to seize the nomination a way from the left-wing primary electorate in the first place. I think it's a testament to his own skills, the desparation of a party that had lost three consecutive elections, as well as the weakness of the other candidates.

[Dr Fate]

18. I see- so the "Liberals" in the party are to blame for Kerry's tactics.

n/t

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[Dr Fate]

35. Who would have been a better candidate?

I don't recall anything even close to "pacifist liberalism" in Kerry's FP positions.

"Liberals like me?" Sounds like a personal jab. On what issues am I a "Liberal?"

SO- I ask you 3 questions:

1. Who would have been a better candidate-and why.

2. What postitions taken by Kerry could be described as "pacifist liberalism?"

3. Since you make the accusation-on what issues am I a "Liberal" -and why are they bad postitions?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

36. No you don't get it it's your fault and people like you.

:sarcasm: (although the tag is not even necessary)

[Dr Fate]

37. Yes- Next they will tell me Kerry ate Chili dogs with Micheal Moore.

n/t

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

38. Sick liberal bastards. Oh the humanity! n/t

[Dr Fate]

39. It went to far when he started wearing the tie-dies & sandals...

And those ANSWER rallies he attended- bad mistake.

He should have used more military & hunting/sportsman imagery.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

40. No shit. BTW I guess about 57 to 59% of the US public has turned into

vintage McGovernite pacifist liberal pussies. What a bunch of shit.

[Dr Fate]

41. Yeah- we should do more to relate to the "Thirty-percenters"...

...who reject the Ultra-Liberal position that wars based on lies are no good for America.

[Dr Fate]

43. Kerry's platform = "vintage McGovernite pacifist liberalism"????

We are still waiting for an explanation of that suggestion.

[Zhade]

88. Just go to the Cato Institute's website, or maybe Limbaugh's.

You'll see where those rightwing terms come from.

And oh yes, McGovernite is a term that originated from the rightwing.

[Dr Fate]

91. Yes- that WWII vet was also called a "Socialist Poet" by Nixon.

n/t

[Zodiak]

44. I'm smelling "conservative democrat" here.

C'mon....the liberal candidate was Kucinich. Kerry is DLC and a big leader within the party. Is he liberal?...sort of, for a senator, but hardly a McGovernite pacifist liberal. He was slightly liberal and ran on a fairly conservative platform for fear of making swindling "moderate" voters mad. Liberal activists suported him after it was clear he was going to be nominated, and not a moment before.

If Democrats like Nelson of Nebraska are your cup of tea, fine, but please spare us strongly-worded assertions that are demonstrably false. Show me how liberal activists chose John Kerry...otherwise, please include the caveat "this is my opinion" in your statements.

[Dr Fate]

46. And not that there is anything wrong with that- but I agree with you...

I recall that "Liberals" preferred Dean or Kucinich.

I backed Clark & Kerry- barely warranting the "Liberals like you" statement.

[Zodiak]

50. I have no problem with Clark and Kerry

I have seen what they do, and I am not happy with them 100% of the time, but I seldom am with anyone. I am happy with both of the aforementioned gentlemen about 80% of the time, and that is good enough for me. I really am tired of the assertion that progressives use "ideological purity" to determine our support. I certainly do not, but of course I do not speak for all progressives.

[Dr Fate]

52. Thanks- you & I should get along great.

Rather than "ideological purity"- my motto is "issue by issue, candidate by candidate."

[Zhade]

89. There's a five-letter word for "conservative democrat"...

...that far more likely applies.

Remember, there have been more than one 1000+ freepers banned from DU after years. Just sayin'.

[Q]

62. This is the third thread...

...I've seen you on where you trash and scapegoat 'liberals'. Your bigoted arguments remind me of the type of crap one can read on the DLC's website...where they love to blame everyone and everything but themselves for their poliltical failures.

Since the 'liberals' that you so despise haven't had any kind of leadership role within the Dem party for decades...it's the DLC that is to blame for losing ground and elections. They have been in control of the party since at least the 80s and have literally written the Dem platform in 2000 and 2004. They have set the agenda...an agenda that has failed to attract enough of the base (working class, minorities, women, have-nots) to get them out to vote.

And what you call 'pacifist liberalism' is nothing more than truth and honesty in government. It's fucking illegal and immoral to attack any country that poses no threat to our security. If the DLC doesn't understand at least this much...then they have no business trying to lead the Dem party.

[IntravenousDemilo]

87. You have a problem with pacifism?

It's far superior to bellicosity. Blessed are the peacemakers.

[Dr Fate]

92. The problem is accusing Kerry of "pacifism" when that is not even true.

n/t

[Career Prole]

19. Not with the demographics in Hell being what they are!

:evilgrin:

[jus_the_facts]

27. Exactly....

[napi21]

22. YES, and we can win BIG, but the Dem candidates have to take

lessons from Howard Dean! I believe it would be President Dean IF the incumbant Dems hadn't all ganged up together to squash an outsider! BTW, Dean has learned a lot since then!

Look at the response that Hackett got in the Red district in Ohio!

I think it's pretty obvious what kind of candidate the people are looking for, and Shrub has given us the perfect opportunity!

[rogerashton]

23. Well,

the Economist, no friend of liberals, takes it for granted that Hillary will be the next pres.

Do you buy that? I guess I sort-of do.

[jus_the_facts]

32. Don't think I can buy that....

....because she herself and Big Dog too have said she's not goin' to run...another case of Economist delusions of grandeur....they only want to see what that *fight* would look like me thinks.

[rogerashton]

45. Something to that but

like the Economist, I don't take politicians' promises not to run seriously.

On the other hand, a Hillary-Condi race is too much fun ever to happen.

[rzemanfl]

28. The Repukes rely on maintaining the perception that the country

is evenly divided in order to get away with their scams. If the point spread gets too big, they won't be able to cover it. All Dems should wear something blue, preferably a hat, to the polls in 2006, when everyone sees that sea of blue, they will be unlikely to buy into bullshit like "Democrats vote after work" or the "reluctant responder" theory.

[BlueIris]

60. Aw. It's so nice to be reminded that others get it, too.

Sigh. GOT to love the smart DUers.

[jus_the_facts]

81. With a corporate owned media...they continue to control perception....

...regardless of what the TRUTH is.

[delen]

34. first

Diebold must go, if enough stink is raised about these machines they will have to go. This is especially true if it is a (choke, gag) bi-partisan effort. I've seen a few posts here saying the re-pugs are questioning results in cases were we have won, was Diebold involved in any of those? If so then there you have it.
As far as winning an election goes- recent developments show that RW politics are soooo attack oriented that if you don't give them anything to attack, they turn on them selves.

[jus_the_facts]

42. Diebold AND corporate owned media.....

....as both are THE tools that cause us to continue to lose.

[dkofos]

47. With our present system, I don't think we can win.

[cassiepriam]

48. BROKEN???? Say the truth, RIGGED.

[zanne]

51. If rigged, why would any Dem run for president...

When I think of all the hard work, sweat, political capital and money it took Kerry to run, I think to myself "Why would he do that if he thought the election would be rigged"? Is it possible he didn't know? OK--say he didn't know then and he found out. Why isn't he speaking about it? Why isn't he trying to get paper trails for the Diebold machines? He's still a very influential person with plenty of contacts and inside connections to at least make a stink about it and get it out in public. There's something really rotten going on with these elections, but I don't think we really know what it is. Y'know?

[BeFree]

53. Unbelievable!

At this time there are 27 votes saying they think the election system is fine. Unbelievable!

Almost one third of the responders to this thread don't have a clue. Not a clue. We are doomed. Pukes can steal the election and a full third of the 'Informed' DU thinks everything is a-ok. They think the election was fair and square! We are doomed.

[jus_the_facts]

56. Yep...

.....you said it.

[NoPasaran]

64. I'm in the "clueless, doomed" group

And I can never figure out why the "repukes own the crooked voting machines" whiners don't find themselves another hobby other than nattering on about politics since their core belief is that they cannot win.
:shrug:

[BeFree]

67. Clueless means doomed to repeat

Repeating the use of the e-voting in the next election, will give us the same result: Republicans.

It is our contention that Dems won the last two presidential elections. The one's who say that we lost are the clueless.

If you look at the evidence you become clued in to just how we won. And how they took over.

If you refuse to look at the information then no change will happen.
Because some are still clueless we Dems could be doomed.

[jus_the_facts]

69. Exactly..and what so many seem unable to also understand is.....

....that our candidate was picked for us with the same failed system in the primary...many people were purged out of the system and were given write in ballots to compensate...or their precints were moved and given the same write-in ballots...and we were told Kerry won the Democratic nomination in a landslide before many states had even voted in the primaries...read thread after thread of irregularities...that's another failure in the system as far as I'm concerned....the same system that failed again on election day...now further down this thread I'm called a nutty conspiracy therorist...I swear it seems some people refuse to see reality much like the right wing which they loathe...Unfuckin'believable indeed.

[BeFree]

71. Yeah, they have the gall to berate us

When all we want is fair and honest elections! How can they get away with that?

Everyone knows that elections are capable of being rigged, couple that with the evidence so far established, if one chooses to think that hard, and the conclusion is that first, Gore, then Kerry, WON their respective elections but were removed from power.

And they have the gall to berate us.

[NoPasaran]

73. If you think you need electronics to rig an election

You have a very limited imagination.

And a shockingly poor knowledge of history.

Enjoy your pity party!:nopity: :nopity: :nopity:

[BeFree]

77. Don't get personal

You can berate us as a group, tho.

You have a very limited imagination.

And a shockingly poor knowledge of history.

Enjoy your pity party! nopity: nopity: nopity:

Your concern is noted. And I'm happy to respond to you.
If you consider that I have been reading up on election reform for three years now, closely following the evidence presented, and that I believe the GOP would do anything they possibly can to remain in power, yet you pity me, then we are at odds. It is my duty, then, to educate you. I can only hope you allow me the time to do so.

[NoPasaran]

83. I was using "you" in the second person plural form

I guess I should have used "y'all" or "youse guys" or something like that to be more clear.

[jus_the_facts]

78. Wasn't just electronics...people were refused their right to vote....

...there were threads all over this board telling how they were disenfranchised by voter roll purges or their precints were moved and they were given write in ballots...then there was a lack of enough voting machines in certain poorer precints but were lavishly put in others...and on and on...it's not pity it's reality..and the history of the last 5 years alone proves it'll keep happening regardless of what you'd like to think.

[jus_the_facts]

75. Guess they also believe the media is "liberal" as well.....

:tinfoilhat: :eyes:

[NoPasaran]

72. I remember Kerry winning in Iowa

Where they don't use ballots at all, just people being herded together in large groups. Do you have a nutty conspiracy theory to explain how that happened?

[jus_the_facts]

76. They hand picked Kerry in the primary with the same computers...

...they used to change the votes in the election...and used the media to crush him publicly...the exit polls showed Gore won Florida and Kerry won Ohio and other states...exit polls aren't wrong they're mathmatically sound procedure...it's not conspiracy it's reality...too bad you can't see it for what it is.

on edit...Kerry's nomination was cemented in the primaries before half the country were able to even vote in it...another failure of they system IMHO.

[NoPasaran]

85. Just who is this "They" of whom you speak anyway

Since "They" first picked Kerry to win the primary (and you/youse/y'all still haven't explained how IOWA happened) and "They" picked Bush to win the election. They who? The DLC? The Illuminati? The Trilateral Commission? The Boogey Man?

And if "they" are so overwhelmingly powerful, just what do you/youse/y'all propose to do to beat them?

[jus_the_facts]

90. THEY are the military industrial complex....Oil Co.s....Diebold....

...the top 1% who own everything and brainwash you to think there's still such a thing as democracy in this country....untill something is done about THOSE have's and have mores who control everything then forget about anything ever being solved...and remember what I've said here come next fall and Nov. '08...it'll be exactly as it was around here following every election since 2000 which launched this site to begin with....all the efforts to make '04 better than 2000 accomplished nothing in the end. :eyes:

[NoPasaran]

94. Sounds like they also manufacture lots of tinfoil

Toodles!

[jus_the_facts]

96. By all means keep those blinders on they sold you.....

[NoPasaran]

70. Oddly enough we use e-voting in my county

Which resulted in overwhelming wins for DEMOCRATS.

[BeFree]

79. What e-voting machines did your county use?

It makes a difference. There are a number of factors which would influence the output. Please, inform us of the demographics of your county. Don't release the name or location if you are uncomfortable, just relevant data.

[NoPasaran]

86. We use eSlate

Travis County, traditionally Democratic had been trending Republican in recent election cycles (Bush won in 2000). We won the county by registering tens of thousands of new voters and getting them to the polls (Kerry won in 2004).

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

54. I voted other

See my sig line.

I refuse to believe we have NO chance.

I also think a lot more people need to keep talking about this and working on this if we're to get out from under the Diebold cloud.

Please, there's over 3 years till that election.

How can we say it is impossible now? Too early to surrender.

Oh and I think the ONLY chance we have may well be in HELL, as we've watched the nation, the planet deteriorate due to the current administration's impact.

:puke:

[eridani]

57. Other -we need to go after a fraud-proof majority

Fraud is only workable if the elections are close.

[BlueIris]

59. Other: HELL, YES. IF a) posters stop whining and start working,

b) we pick two strong, effectual, candidates, and c) we do all we can to ensure that a landslide goes to them from the middle and the far left/base, to make up for the inevitable fraud we won't be able to rend out of the electoral system by even '08. There are other factors of course--greater influence in media and the hard-core, knock-down, drag-out smearing of the corrupt right in America in every way we possibly can, for all they deserve it for. The key thing next time will be not just a good ticket, but not leaving the Republicans any room to even try to defraud us (which, of course, they will). So many remain unaware of the fraud that threatens '06 and '08 because they simply (stupidly, if you ask me) believe we lost. They've bought the defeatist spiel about "flip-floppers" and "abortion-loving liberals" not being able to win elections. Stay organized, stay on top of the facts, work your guts out for your candidate(s) of choice. It can be done.

[jus_the_facts]

74. Can't smear them well enough with a corporate owned MEDIA.....

...if you think *stupidly if you ask ME* that somehow that isn't happening to our message and our candidates then go ahead and refuse to see reality for what it is.

[Douglas Carpenter]

61. of course there are legitimate concerns about the integrity of the

voting system and some legitimate concern about actual fraud.

But nutty conspiracy theory thinking does not help our cause

[xchrom]

63. it depends -- on issues like fraud,

on whether certain ''conservatives'' will either stay home or vote to deliver a message of dissatisfaction, etc.

i'm basically of the opinion that most conservatives really hate dems and will not vote for them regardless of circumstance{yes that can change in certain urban areas}.

there is a kind of political parity out there -- and voters are hesitant about dems -- not because of our candidates but because of committment to our message.
they espect us to be liberal -- but i think they want to see reall passion and fire behind our issues.

if we put out candidates who ''seem'' like they are too lifeless -- dems will not inspire confidense -- dems may win but it won't be with the kind of margins that you might like.

[zann725]

65. Seems the question SHOULD be "Can we get this Admin out BEFORE '08?"

...and the TRULY-elected Dem's IN.

Of course we can NOT depend on the election machines to count our votes.

These criminals need to answer to the law BEFORE '08...ALL of them WITHOUT Prez. "pardon."

[jus_the_facts]

80. Impossible with a repuke controlled congress...

...and corporate owned media.

[Left Turn]

66. The tide...

...is turning so greatly against the Republicans. They can't steal an election that we all know will be a Democratic victory going in, or if they do, there will be hell to pay for them.

[0rganism]

82. It's just too early for me to make that guess

Perhaps the electorate is so fed-up with the GOP that they will turn out in overwhelming numbers to throw the bastards out of office. Or maybe dissatisfaction with the incumbent majority will melt away like a morning fog in the strong sunlight of election year propaganda.

Perhaps the stakes are too high for the GOP backers right now, and the election will be stolen no matter how large the margins. Or maybe their hold on the election machinery is not as strong as I've been led to believe.

There are a lot of things yet to happen in the next 12 months that will change the landscape.

But no matter what, it doesn't affect what I will do, personally. I will work my butt off to get the best people into key elected positions. That is the bottom line. If it turns out to be futile because of compromised voting machines or overwhelming propaganda budgets, at least I will still be able to sleep at night knowing I did all I could for my country.

[IntravenousDemilo]

84. Sure, you have a chance -- as you say, "in HELL"...

which is where you're living as long as Bush is president. So you're in luck there.

I chose other, because I thought you should have had the middle choice, "Yes, despite the electoral system being broken".

A straight "yes" or "no" is just so B&W Republican.

[Independent_Liberal]

93. After the challenge to the electors on January 6...

...I think that was a clear sign that the Repukes know where on to them. I don't think they'll be stupid enough to try it again.

[hellbound-liberal]

95. I'd rather take one of the Houses of Congress and change the

leadership.If we elect a President and the Pukes still own both Houses I think it would be tough to get anything through.

[nvliberal]

97. Not a chance as long as we have electronic voting machines.

It has nothing to do with "attitude."

Come to think of it, if one is worried about "attitude," take a look at the pollyanna types who actually are in denial of what has happened during the last three elections.

They STILL believe the 2000 election was a fluke, they still believe the Republicans fairly gained more Senate seats in 2002 and 2004, and they still believe Kerry lost fair and square to Bush. All Democrats have to do is employ a winning strategy.

And to get rid of those machines, it's going to have to take work on a state-by-state basis. As more legislatures become Republican, the chances of that happening become more remote, since the Republicans aren't about to get rid of a system which benefits them.

Face it: We live in a fascistic country now, and we are fucked.

[zulchzulu]

98. 2006 has to about electronic voting reform or...we...are....screwed...

Nothing has been done so far...many appeals for reform have been shelved by the Republicans. We need to make that an issue that hangs heavy on their heads...along with all the other scandals.

[catmother]

100. democrat

not if we align ourselves with people like michael moore, al franken, al sharpton. people see this and it scares them. also we need to really state what we stand for and what we will do. it seems like we're just floundering right now.

[newspeak]

101. BS!!!!!

I have read Michael Moore for a long time and I'm tired of the media spin to try to discredit him. He is more of an American patriot than what's squatting in the WH! I bought Fahrenheit 9-11 and segments of his film I already knew, seeing it on other "obscure" media sites. For John McCain to say he's a liar without even viewing the film, was pure ignorance!!!!!! All spin, spin, spin. Of course the lemmings kept buying into the media's spin, calling it a lie, when most of them hadn't even viewed the film. His book "Will They Ever Trust Us Again?" Is actual letters from soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, that says all that needs to be said. Al Sharpton is a witty orator that I actually love hearing, not that I would vote for him--but he's not afraid to tell the TRUTH!!!!

[Arkana]

104. That is total bullshit.

There are people here who dislike Moore and Franken and Sharpton, yet it hasn't scared them away. We have already stated what we would like to do--the corporate media simply refuses to report it.

Blaming the party's ills on Moore, Franken and Sharpton is a cheap cop-out.

[Neil Lisst]

102. I know we can, I know we can, I know we can

--- the little party that COULD!

[newspeak]

103. Yes!!!!

we have a chance to elect a Democratic leader--one with guts, that's not afraid to tell it "like it is." One who won't pull any punches---i'm tired of public relations created mannequins fed to the public!!!! False images that the public apparently swallows with gusto!!!! Bring back the Fairness Doctrine in media and verified paper ballots!!!!!! Most politicians spend billions on public relations, feeding us false images with no substance. It's getting old turning sows ears into silk purses.

[Davis_X_Machina]

105. Fraud won't even be necessary...

...instead we'll have a replay of 2004 -- one pro-war candidate, and one really pro-war candidate.

And this despite a majority of the population wanting an end to the war, too.

And despite a plurality identifying the war as the biggest problem facing the country.

Faced with another choice between someone with a proven track record of senseless slaughter (a Republican), and another candidate who can only promise to conduct the senseless slaughter more efficiently, or with the help of other nations, or something else along those lines (a Democrat), the voters who want the war to actually end will stay home, or bullet-ballot the top of the ticket, and those who want the war's continued prosecution will pick the Republican.

[newspeak]

106. "homey don't play that game, no more"

time for a grass roots movement against the corporate media spin machine!!!! You know, i bet those CEO's pat themselves on the back on how much power they have over the "clueless public." Telling us who to vote for, who's electable. I mean public relations was in full spin to SELL us a war!!! They sell us as we are the consumers. Consumers of bullshit. Some of us eat it with gusto!!!! Time to quit playing their game. That's only going to happen if a grassroots movement "the people" quit playing and creating their own. It seems now that the republicans with the help of the media define the issues. And, for over six years, they've been personal issues--abortion, gay rights, while issues such as job secrity, health care, environment, foreign policy are just minor distractions. It is for ALL of our best interest to quit playing their game. Define issues that are important for the well-being of all the people and the infrastructure of our country.

[jus_the_facts]

107. I've posted time and time again how people should stop paying for cable...

...after ad nauseum threads about how the media pisses them off...the only way to get through to the media isn't by continuing to complain about it through calls and emails...but instead to quit paying their monthly extortion payments to the cable and satellite companies..newspapers and magazines not just avoiding certain advertisers....but create HUGE DEFICTS in their PROFIT MARGINS is the ONLY way to make them pay attention to we the people....quit fattening their bank accounts and siphoning your own...you'd be amazed how I've been flamed because people enjoy being lied to and bitchin' about it...feeding the frenzy of corporate consumerism...instead of cuttin' off the hand that feeds it to them...so many things could be fixed if we would quit funding the insanity that is shoved at us 24/7 on the idiot box.

[rhett o rick]

108. Democracy is dying and there isn't a chance to stop it.

Democracy and freedom are easy when you have lots of assets. But this Country is being raped by the greedy. The middle class is dying. Without a middle class, kiss democracy goodbye. The more desperate this Country gets financially, the easier it will be for the rulers to convince the American people to steal from other countries (like Iraq). This Country has lost it's abundance of natural resources, technical brains, hard working workforce, etc. It will take a hell of a lot more than the Democrats winning an election to turn the trend around.

[WA98296]

109. Controlled Media, Private Republican Corp. Counting Votes, Rigged Polls...

Chances look dim.

[Dawgs]

110. No, the election system works,

but the propoganda machine, fear, gays, abortion, and stupid voters will keep a Democrat from getting elected.