This election will be no walk in the park

[dsc]

I would love for history to be wrong here but history suggests we will have win a narrow race, not the blowout some are expecting. First, some history.

There have been 27 Presidential elections from 1900 until 2004. Democrats have received a majority of the vote in 6. Of those 6, four were FDR. The other two were LBJ and Carter. All of our other wins were pluralities, not majorities. As bad as Bush is he didn't bring a Great Depression. As good as our candidates are they aren't LBJ or FDR. That leaves Carter, with his narrow 50.1%, majority. Yep, you read that right. Carter won 50.1% of the vote. And he is still only the fourth Democrat to have won a majority of the popular vote since the civil war (Tilden was the first).

We should win this election. But it will be a miricle if we can get 52% of the vote let alone a landslide. Bush has been uniquely bad. He has combined the worst of Nixon, Hoover, and Wilson (you can throw in the haplessness of Buchanan if you like) into one terrible package. But even when Republicans fall apart this way they get enough back together to keep Democrats from racking up huge wins most of the time. We could see a strong third party candidate split the GOP. We could see Bush doing to the GOP what Wilson did the Democrats and make large numbers of GOP voters sit on their hands giving us a huge majority. But we are likely to see a very close race on election night. We could wind up with a north/south version of Carter's east/west map. East of the Missouri river Carter won 20 states and lost 10. West of the Missouri he won only 2 and lost 18. Our nominee could easily win every state Gore won plus Ohio, Colorado or Nevada, and New Hampshire. That would give him a map much like Carter's only north south being the division. That would also be a reasonably close electoral race.

Bottom line. We can't afford third party nonsense. There isn't some huge majority out there.

[emulatorloo]

1. recommending n/t

[ixion]

2. "As bad as Bush is he didn't bring a Great Depression"

that statement is very, very debatable. His economic policies are gutting the dollar, which may lead to another depression type market correction.

[dsc]

4. In here appearance is reality

if the depression doesn't show up in time it won't matter. I do think he has greatly imperiled us economicly but I don't that that will be fully apparent until at least early 2009.

[Raven]

3. Boy, do I ever agree with you! And, to make things scarier,

I believe that this is probably the most important election of our lifetimes. If we lose, the Supreme Court is gone for a generation. If we lose, one of the idiots out of the batch of Republican idiot candidates will be running this country for at least 4 years and we will probably be at war continuously. It's a very ugly prospect.

No only is a third party a bad idea this time around, but I think we have to be very careful and thoughtful about who we nominate as the Democratic candidate. I personally will put aside my preferred candidate if I determine that another candidate is more able to win in the general election. From where I stand, ANY democratic candidate is vastly better than what we have now or what the republicans are offering. Picking the democrat who has the best chance of winning will be our challenge going forward.

[dsc]

6. It is hard to know what will win now

A charismatic Richardson would be great. Between Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards it is hard to know who would be our strongest candidate. All have advantages and all have disadvantages. I think we are best off picking the best candidate and hoping for the best.

[bananas]

5. We need a landslide.

We have to reverse the damage done,
without a landslide we'll be like the Titanic,
split in half and sinking like a rock.

[sellitman]

7. You didn't even mention the GOP controled voting machines.

Not a small omission in my book.

[Stevepol]

8. I agree but not for the reasons you suggest.

Kerry won a near landslide in 04, and whatever Dem runs in 08 will win by a larger margin yet.

But of course the actual vote is completely irrelevant. The only question is how much the electronic voting machines will be tilted in favor of the Repub whoever that might be.

If it's not tilted enough as happened in 06 in the mid-terms, the Dem gets in but probably by a slim margin; if it's tilted by about 10% or so, the Dem candidate whoever that might be loses.

It's as simple as that. There is absolutely no reason whatever to have the slightest bit of confidence in the outcome of elections in the US as long as the vote is counted in secret without verification. In fact, this is true in all cases and places: WHEN THE VOTE IS COUNTED IN SECRET WITHOUT VERIFICATION, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE A DEMOCRACY.

It's possible to have a virtual election or a cyber democracy, but not a real election or democracy. For that you have to have paper ballots hand-counted or machine counts of paper verified by strict auditing regulations.

[dsc]

10. Then why did we win Congress?

I ask this all the time and never get a real answer.

[CitizenLeft]

15. because the makeup of the governorships changed

I don't believe - and I hope I'm right - that the voting machines, and election fruad, will be a factor in '08. It was the Republican governors who made that happen for Bush - Jeb Bush and his Katherine Harris in '00, and Taft and his Blackwell in '04. Crist has already made changes in FL that, supposedly, won't allow that to happen again (I'll have to look that up, though). Ohio now has a Democrat in the gov's mansion. If I remember correctly, 28 of the 50 governors are now Democrats... that's a huge advantage when it comes to election fraud, meaning that the RNC will have way fewer governors who are willing to do their bidding, and of those Rep. governors, you've got at least 2 big blue states, CA & IL, that the RNC can't tamper with (one would think, LOL). So I don't think fraud will be an issue this time. *fingers crossed* If there are any states to watch, it's MO and FL, if Crist is only pulling the wool over our eyes. I thought I read he was getting rid of the machines.

On the other hand, machines mean nothing. Bush got in with paper ballots, didn't he? And as we found out, machines were only a part of it. It was the caging that did the damage. But again, you need a Republican governor willing to break the law to do that.

[dsc]

17. both examples you cite

are governorships that changed in 2007. I just don't think there is rigging of machines going on. I think they have tended to use the old fashioned voter intimidation to steal the elections.

[Turn CO Blue]

20. and gerrymandering

they don't even have to bother to rig the machines when they have a 5% advantage in many districts going in. They have diluted the minority and college areas and younger neighborhood vote by carefully drawn lines - some of which jut left and right - and what is awful is that we do not have a SCOTUS that would see the redistricting as unconstitutional.

edited for clarity.

[John Q. Citizen]

27. Both parties gerrymander shamelessly when they can get away with it. Lots

of evidence for this.

I'm beginning to suspect that both parties rig the machines too, given the kind of attention and solutions coming from the Dem leadership on this issue. They don't seem all that concerned about it, to say the least. What's up with that?

[John Q. Citizen]

26. They use both, and more. Intimidation is just one component of stealing

elections. Look at the bogus "Felon voter list" used in Florida in 2000 to keep 50,000 black voters minimum from being able to even cast a ballot.

If the machines aren't being manupulated, then why would 95% of the so-called "glitiches" in 2004 favor bush? Real glitiches should be random and have a final value much closer to 50% each way.

Remember the late night Florida "computer glitch" that somehow caused Gore to lose 10,000 votes, and resulted in the 3 networks not calling Florida for Gore? Accidental? No way.

Why would a "glitch' only lose ten thousand votes, instead of say 10 billion? Or ten million? Or ten trillion? A true glitch would most likely not lose a range of votes that is small since numerically the odds overwhelmingly favor a completely non-sense number. Not a number that is within such a small range. The same thing was documented in Ohio in 2004 where a machine "glitched" and awarded bush 5000 fantasy votes. Why 5000 instead of, say, 5 billion? What are the odds of random machinces in two seperate elections randomly "glitching" and randomly favoring the Repos within a very small (but significant) numerical range? Where are the "glitches" that accidentally award 40 trillion votes? I've never read about them. Have you?

Why did Ohio manipulate the recount, if their numbers were good? A recount wouldn't expose voter intimidation. But it would expose tabulation manipulation. They claimed the recount was manipulated so they didn't have to spend the money to recount all the ballots. Do you buy that excuse?

And then there is the missing ten thousand votes in the Florida congressional district in 06. Again, a reletively small number, not a "glitch" but evidence of, yes, rigging the machines.

I live in Montana. Late on election night 06, with just a few thousand votes seperating Dem Jon Tester and Repo incumbant Sen. Conrad Burns, a "glitch" caused the tabulation computer in Yellowstone County (Billings) to go down. Tester eventually eeked out a win by a few thousand votes, but I still think it's interesting that Yellowstone County was the only urban population area in the state where more people cast votes for US Congress than for US Senate. Burns was from Yellowstone Country. It's not proof, but it does seem to follow a pattern. Simular things took place in Virginia. A late night "glitch" from a critical area.
Neither Burns or Allen filed for a recount, even though their losses were statistically tiny. Montana uses scanned paper ballots. Perhaps that's why no recount filed?

No, if you and the Dems are going to stick to faith in the machines supplied and programmed in secret by private vendors, and unauditible elections, I'm going to have to at least consider a third party. I mean why the hell not? At least the Greens and the Libertarians seemed to care about representative democracy enough to push for a recount in Ohio. Sure the Dems sort of stuck their fingers in and dabbled but where is the leadership on this issue? It's from regular citizens, sure as hell not from the party. Why not? What's going on here?

[CitizenLeft]

29. whoa there...

... yes, there was definitely evidence of vote-flipping in Ohio in '04, especially in the Columbus area and Athens, OH, where Miami U is located. This is no secret or conspiracy theory. True, in Cuyahoga Cty, where I voted, intimidation and mass "voting machine malfunctions" controlled the minority vote in urban Cleveland and a few of its suburbs. But in southern Ohio, it was the machines.

And what I said was that in the NEXT election there will be fewer chances for the RNC to control state elections precisely because now there are 28 Democratic governors.

[Stevepol]

28. Check Ron Baimon at electiondefensealliance.

To begin with of course there's no way to answer any question about vote counting in the US definitively since the machines either can't be audited (touchscreens) or they aren't audited. So no proof is available except exit polls, and even that will be less reliable and maybe even fraudulent by the time the 08 election gets here. The exit poll results are jiggered normally (and rightfully in some cases) to take acct of a lot of demographic factors, but because the results are uniformly showing fewer Dems in the elections than the polls indicate, they may decide to factor that difference into the results to begin with.

He says the tilt was greater in 06 than in 04, but it still wasn't enough to overcome the landslide that put the Dems in office.

I think this is what happened:

The vendors, primarily ES&S & Diebold since they supply the majority of vote-counting machines, decided on a tilt slightly greater than 06, thinking this would be enough to prevent the Dems from winning in large numbers. However, the Foley affair came only a week before the election, a week or so AFTER the machines had been programmed from the front office. There wasn't time to re-adjust the numbers.

Baimon's link: www.electiondefensealliance.org

[HowHasItComeToThis]

13. AMERICA IN GRAVE PERIL, REPUBS MUST WIN OR ELSE.......

THERE WILL BE MASSIVE LEGAL ACTIONS AGAINST THEM.

[John Q. Citizen]

18. And the machines are just one component of a well oiled election manipulation

program. Voter disenfrachisement through a whole host of schemes, from vote caging to absentee ballot manipulation schemes to creating obsticles to voting, registration manipulation schemes and the list goes on.

This aspect also adds up to millions of manipulated votes nationwide as well.

What I still wonder about is why the Dems, as a party, still don't seem to get it? They pay it scant lip service and even less action. Why?

[earthlover]

9. We need Clark

1) National security is still going to be an important residual issue in 08. Actually, on both sides, few candidates have even military experience. Yet, we can be sure that the Republican nominee is going to try to paint the Dems as being weak on national security. They were able to do this even though their candidate shirked Vietnam and went AWOL from the guard, so we can expect more of the same.

2) Iraq will still be an issue. A candidate who opposed Iraq from the beginning and has warned against adventures in Iran or elsewhere in the Middle East would be nice.

3) Health care. We need a candidate who can doesn't tow the corporate line here.

4) Environment. People are waking up to global warming.

5) The economy. Although we are not in a depression, people are still nervous.

6) Corruption. This may be an underlying issue coupled with a disgust with Washington in general.


Seems to me the candidate who can best campaign on these issues is Wes Clark. Unassailable military credentials, strong on security, opposed Iraq from the start, sees war as only the last resort, has spoken up for dialogue in the Middle East and warning against adventurism in Iran, very strong on health care, the economy and environment. Straight as an arrow, oozes with honor, a sense of duty and earnestness the perfect antidote to Washington corruption. The guy is brilliant, was a Rhoades Scholar, 1st in his class at West Point, economics prof, came from humble background, is progressive to the core, had the best and most progressive reform of the tax code in 04, and "would not take shit from nobody"!

All of our announced candidates would make better presidents than any of the Reps, but each of them gives me some worry about electability in November. Clark I feel is unbeatable in November. He would greatly strengthen any ticket as VP, but the strongest ticket has Clark on top.

[oldgrowth]

11. Then there is the crap media pushing a few candidates that they

See as less of a threat to them ,free ad time my putting there names out there over and over!!It really pisses me off that they are trying to pick for us!!!!And Clinton did some of this with his 1996 Telcom dereg.bill!

[The Backlash Cometh]

12. Whether Al Gore is planning to run or not, he can be the tipping point

in the next election. I thought about it after reading all of your posts on the Live Earth concert.

I don't know if you all realized this, but yesterday was also the Daytona Nascar Race and what we had was America going in two different directions. One group was looking towards the future, and the other is chasing its tail. No offense to Nascar fans, but the reality is, if you want to get their attention, you're going to have find a way to get in their face. And Al Gore can do it because he's bringing people together and he has what working class people understand fully. He was wronged, he has the right to stand up and speak with all the piss and vinegar that comes with someone who has been handed the ultimate Country song. He lost the election because the boss hogs across the country stole it from him. He was the rightful president in 2000.

And more importantly, he's passing Bill Clinton in profile. As for Al Gore's son? The sad truth is that nobody's family is perfect. And if Bush is any indication, a little imperfection seems to be what attracts the Southern vote. You just have to know how to put it in terms that they can relate to. Right now, they're saying Al Gore's son is a spoiled brat and they won't relate to that. If the truth is different, now's the time to say something about it.

[dsc]

16. I had no idea about Nascar's big race being yesterday

I don't think Gore's son will matter unless he needs so much help Al can't run when he otherwise would run. We have no way of knowing that. I do think Gore would be our best candidate but I also don't think he is willing to run. Gore would be best able to run both a forward looking campaign and a critique of the current administration both of which is needed for us to win.

We honestly are two countries but our side is gaining. A win, even a narrow win, is still a win.

[The Backlash Cometh]

19. I'm judging the candidates on what Kennedy had in the 60s.

He filled the country up with something that I can't put into words, really, but it just felt like we were going to break into the next level of human existence. It is a world that will bring equity back into our society, so I understand why the boss hogs in this world don't like it, and in particular, the anglo-centric good ole boys who have been doing things behind closed doors for so many years, but, as an ordinary American, it just felt great again, to be an American. That's when I got hooked, and I can't say that I've seen America so great since. Reagan was just smoke and mirrors.

Obama had it, and now that his conservative leanings and desire to play it safe is showing, he's losing it. Bill Clinton had it, but, lost the ability to reach the other side because of the Lewinsky problem; Hillary never had it when it mattered; Edwards could possibly make a great VP; Kerry is saying all the right things, but for some reason, it's not sticking and my guess is because his reach just remains within the political arena.

It's the kind of vision that comes from a lifetime of strife, and it has to reach that part of us that still believes that anything is possible as long as we work together.

[dsc]

22. Kennedy barely won

and might well have lost in 64. I do think Robert would have won big in 68 since he could run on Johnson's accomplishments and against his war. Kind of the best of both worlds.

[The Backlash Cometh]

23. With the country so fractured, "barely" may be all we have left.

We just have to be smarter now and never stop battling the ugly side of the GOP machine.

[Tom Joad]

14. getting an antiwar candidate nominated will be the hardest part...

i mean someone who does not support the continuation of any US troops in iraq (not just "redeployed"), supports the dismantaling of all US military bases in Iraq, the removal of the mercenary personal in Iraq, supports Iraqi workers desire to oppose privatization of Iraqi oil...
that's the hard part.

[bvar22]

24. I agree, and I'm watching a disaster in the making.

The Top Tier Democratic candidates WILL split the Democratic Party if they get the nomination.

A Hillary/Obama nomination will GUARANTEE a strong 3rd Party Run that will collect a surprising percentage of populist votes practically guaranteeing a Republican WIN.

[tblue37]

21. Or a third party candidate could split the Democratic vote

and hand the election the GOP. There is no guarantee at all that a third party candidate would benefit the Democrats. For example, if Bloomberg decides his ego really needs that run, a lot of mushy Dems and uninformed independents who are leaning Dem will vote for him.

And, yes, there are plenty of mushy Dems and Dem-leaning independents, even here on this board, who have already been singing his praises. One thing that freaks me out is how quickly people who hear anyone say one single thing they like immediately start chanting, "Ron Paul for president!" or "Bloomberg for president!" or even "Oprah for president!" If people who read what is available on boards like this are still capable of such mindlessness, what hope is there for those who follow only what FOX or the rest of the corporatist media feed them?

If a third-party candidate runs, we need to hope it is Sam Brownback!

We also need to start the ads early informing people about the fact that they are also voting for the make-up of the Supreme Court for at least a generation. In a way I am glad the Roberts Court has tipped its hand so early, because that gives us concrete evidence of which way Republican appointees will take the Court.

[DeepModem Mom]

25. K&R

[Imagevision]

30. Who do they got? Jool, Thompson, Romney? - sh8t, I can be them...

Dem's would have to fu8k-up major to lose, unless there's some truth to Bush going to war with Iran and post-phoning the election??