The Primaries Have Been Rigged (Or am I Just Another "Conspiracy Nut"?)

[tucsonlib]

The Repugs, aided and abetted by the DLC and the MSM, managed early on to convince Democrats that Clinton was the "front-runner". Think about that. Do any of you personally know even one Dem who, from the start, was enthusiastically supporting Clinton? Then, to give us the illusion of "choice", and to guarantee a divided electorate, they convinced us that Obama was the next highest vote-getter. So here we are - reduced to arguing among ourselves which candidate has the best chance of beating McCain in November. The BEST CHANCE?? A trained gerbil should be able to beat McCain. Edwards, Dodd, Biden, Richardson or Kucinich would have trounced McCain. No question. And we would have all been united behind our (one) candidate. But none of them were "electable", so we were told.
Why would they do this? Because Clinton and Obama are the two candidates whose "defeat" in November will be easiest to explain away. If Clinton "loses", the pundits will attribute it to her "divisiveness". Or maybe it was a "gender" thing. If it's Obama, can't you just picture those talking heads somberly asking whether "racism" was a factor? And the American people will buy it. And once again those who raise questions will be ridiculed as conspiracy nuts. And that thinly veiled threat, "You lost. Now get over it!" will once again echo thoughout the land.
I wish I could be more optimistic. Who knows? Maybe November will usher in a new progressive era for America. But last month I applied for a new passport. And I've been checking out Costa Rican real estate. Just in case.....

[cali]

1. paranoid garbage, and full to the brim with ignorance.

To say Kucinich would have trounced anyone, is just laughable. Furthermore, odds are strong that the next president will be a dem.

[SoxFan]

2. You're just another conspiracy nut

[PoliticalAmazon]

66. Look, after Bush Jr stole the 2000 election and NO Democrats in Congress stood up for us....

...I don't think we can ever dismiss at hand a theory that has to do with vote fraud.

[mrbluto]

72. Useful term; "Consipracy Nut" - means you don't have to think

You just label and dismiss.

So what if he's wrong - is nothing he said useful?

If it's so obviously wrong then why did you feel it necessary to post anything?

Nope. You felt a need to come and call the guy a name, then say nothing else - just call him a name.

Very constructive. Perhaps you drive along city streets a at a good clip and hand out all sorts of advice in you neighborhood. I'm sure you'd be appreciated. Just drive around and yell "mow your lawn!" or "too much lipstick!"

It'd be pretty much the same as you've done here.

[oviedodem]

3. I agree with you and especially considering that Kucninch who is a true

democrat, and Biden or Edwards would be fine. It is the DLC at work no question about it. I am a firm believer that there is collusion between the DLC and RNC.

[KittyWampus]

4. that's why the DCL is trying so hard to damage Obama. Oh, and Biden voted for the Bankruptcy Act

or so many DU'ers INSISTED on telling me ad naseum when he was still running.

[tucsonlib]

5. Looks Like It's You & Me, Ovie. At Least So Far.......

[bowens43]

8. You can't possibly believe that Kucinich could ever be elected president.

YOu just need top face up to the fact that you're in the minority. There is no conspiracy.

[tucsonlib]

23. Just Because You're Paranoid, It Doesn't Mean.....

[Bluzmann57]

6. If either Obama or Clinton wins

Are you going to stay in this country? Personally, I think you should leave no matter what because you appear to be "just another conspiracy nut". My neighbor was, and is an avid Clinton supporter. And she has been since day one. So there is at least one.
And it must be nice to have the means to leave whenever you want. Most of us have to actually work and continue to pay bills and save for our kids and save for our meager retirements...Well anyway, good luck in Costa Rica.

[tucsonlib]

13. Re: "My neighbor has been an avid Clinton supporter since day one."

Well, she makes one. Is that your best shot?
Y'know, I posted my original comment as a kind of lark. I figured it might generate some interesting discussion. Instead, to my astonishment, I've been pelted with the kind of vitriol one would expect to find emanating from the Maw of Coulter. Not one intelligent, fact-based rebuttal. Just insults. You folks have accused me of being paranoid, ignorant, lazy, elitist, un-American and, of course, a conspiracy nut (Not too original, Guys).
I can reach only one conclusion - I must have struck a nerve!! There must actually be some inconvenient truths in my post! So I will accept your ridicule and insults as badges of honor. And with all my heart I hope and pray that in November I won't be in a position to scream, "I told you so!" (Not that I would ever be so crass......)

[hendo]

27. Sorry...

but you are a little paranoid. Not that there is anything wrong with that, it seems like there are a lot of conspiracy nuts lately.

[tucsonlib]

28. See Post #23

[bowens43]

7. Yes, you're a nut.

[Solomon]

9. I have always felt that with Obama and Hillary they have the

perfect excuse to steal it by blaming it on racism or sexism. This has always worried me.

But for some reason, I feel like Obama has them by the short hairs.

It reminds me of the saying, "came like a thief in the night". That's what Obama did. They never saw him coming and they waited too late to try and stop him and circumstances have continually caused them to shoot their load too soon.

I'm expecting so big a "whoosh" in November that they won't be able to play the game that we know they want to play.

[tucsonlib]

11. Re: Obama as Thief in the Night

I sincerely hope you're right.

[dchill]

10. "A trained gerbil should be able to beat McCain."

Good line. I agree with you on just one point - that the media and the Repugs have always wanted Hillary to be our nominee, but for their own reasons. Other than that, you're on your own. :hi:

[madrchsod]

12. yup ...you`re a nut

[TheDonkey]

14. Get the fuck out of here. What is this garbage. The crazies do indeed come out at night

:puke:
:puke::puke:
:puke::puke::puke:
:puke::puke::puke::puke:
:puke::puke::puke::puke::puke:
:puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke:
:puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke:

[tucsonlib]

19. Re: "Get the fuck out of here."

Thank you for the reasoned response. Sorry about your persistent, uncontrollable vomiting. Must make you a big hit at parties!

[Political Heretic]

15. I don't think you're as nuts as apparently some people do.

2000 and 2004 sort of cured me of writing anyone off in a knee-jerk fashion when it comes to talking about ways in which elections can be subverted.

[tucsonlib]

17. Re: "I don't think you're as nuts as some people do."

Thank you. Sincerely. Under the circumstances that's one of the nicest compliments you could have bestowed.

[bluetrain]

16. I agree with you. And it amazes me how many people have taken the bait.

[tucsonlib]

18. Re: I agree with you

Hmmmm... Then you must be one of those paranoid, ignorant, lazy, crazy conspiracy nuts who come out at night!
:pals:

[2rth2pwr]

20. Kucinich had to be stopped early, the powers that be were terrified of him.

He had no strings and has an ability to communicate with everyone, including alien life.

You know Karl Rove had to have let out the biggest sigh of relief that the powerhouse that was the Kucinich campaign was

stopped in it's tracks right out of the gate in Iowa. Still the chance that he may be picked as VP to make 2008 a lock

looms large over the corporate fat cats, and they will stop at nothing to block that from happening.

[tucsonlib]

21. Re: Kucinich had to be stopped early

Thank you. That took a lot of courage. Maybe those flamers out there have exhausted their limited cache of epithets. But just in case, let us now read from the books of Mathew, Luke, John and....DUCK!!

[cali]

29. they never even noticed him. he posed zero threat

to the corporate class. he ran an abysmal campaign, not even bothering to make an effort in Iowa. Love Dennis but he posed about as much of a threat to the coporatists as I do.

[tucsonlib]

30. Re: He posed zero threat

I could offer a rebuttal to that opinion, but you'd probably find it "paranoid garbage, and full to the brim with ignorance."

[cali]

31. I doub6t you could. convenient excuse though.

and no, sorry, your OP didn't strike a nerve because of its "unvarnished" truth. It irritated because of its stupidity.

[tucsonlib]

33. Re: I doubt you could. convenient excuse though.

Never claimed it was "unvarnished truth". And I'll happily add "stupid" to your other feeble ad hominem insults. (Right up there with "paranoid" and "ignorant") But if you are truly "irritated", how about enlightening us all as to precisely what you found so "stupid". And why.
I can back up my theory with historical facts. Can you defend your sleazy, childish name-calling?
Thought not.

[cali]

37. First of all, few things are as simple and linear as you make out in your OP.

Yes, of course the MSM has influence and so does the DLC- but they're hardly the only groups that do. Why was Hillary Clinton considered the frontrunner last year? Hmm. Maybe because she's the wife of a popular dem ex-President. Maybe because she had raised a huge amount of money and received the endorsements of a couple of hundred SDs, and no, sorry, all of them weren't DLC. Quite a few members of the House Progressive caucus in there. The MSM certainly jumped right in, and they surely love the first woman/first (serious) black candidate narrative, but there's more to it than the simple "the MSM and DLC picked the two of them and all the others were stronger". What evidence do you present for your theory? None. Zip. You rely on popular memes. You haven't backed up ANYTHING whatsofuckingever with historical facts. You simply claim you can, but dcn't do it.

There is no way on earth that you can prove that the other candidates were stronger potential nominees. Polls months and years out from the general election prove nothing because nothing is static. And sorry, dear, but the claim that Dennis Kucinich could beat McCain is fucking patently ridiculous. He couldn't even get 3% in the primaries he was in. Mostly he was under 1%. And again, he ran a very poor campaign. His greatest hope would have been to do well in Iowa. He did virtually no campaigning there and didn't even set up one office in the entire state.

There is nothing well thought out about your OP and you provide nothing to back up your claims. Intellectually bereft is the kindest thing I can say. Oh yeah, and get over yourself.

[Warren DeMontague]

67. You know, usually I find your posts intolerably annoying...

but this one made me laugh. :thumbsup:

[SunsetDreams]

22. No it's post like this that seek to incite fear....

Oh ye Democrats, be vewy vewy afraid of the Republicans, they have a plan this year, they always do.

You know what? Screw that, the Republicans, should and will be shaking in their boots this year.

DEMS ARE NO LONGER AFRAID!

NOT THIS TIME!!!

[tucsonlib]

24. Re: NOT THIS TIME!!!

I hope you're right. But I and millions of others weren't afraid in 2000. Or 2001,2,3,4,5, 6,or 7. We did what we could. And you know what happened? If we weren't ridiculed or slandered by the Republicans (and many Democrats) we were simply ignored.
What's your game plan, exactly? Rhetoric alone won't work. Trust me on that.

[elizm]

25. Obama will be the nominee because he EARNED it...

...From the support of people like me who believed in him from day one and have fought hard on his campaign in each and every state....NOT because the media picked him! How absurd. But I do know many Edwards supporters around me who were bitter from day one because they believe that Obama stole Edwards chances and who would subscribe to your ridiculous theory in order to justify their anger and disappointment.

[tucsonlib]

26. Re: Because he EARNED it...

I applaud your dedication. I was not an Edwards supporter. Nor am I "bitter". And it's sooo easy to call my theory "ridiculous". (It's been called a lot worse in this thread.) But can you back up that insult with any sort of rational argument? You'd be the first one to even try.

[elizm]

55. It's your conspiracy theory. Therefore the onus is on you. nt

[tucsonlib]

70. Ummm..Not the Way I See It

As you point out - It's a theory. Debunk it if you can....

[mrbluto]

73. You protest too much.

NOT because the media picked him!

Squinch your eyes closed and keep repeating that.

Maybe magic will happen. Maybe you're not hoping hard enough.

[onenote]

32. Since you asked: yes you are a conspiracy nut. And not well informed either

I'm an Obama supporter. Let's get that out of the way.

Now, as for your question(s):

I personally know a number of life long Democrats who have enthusiastically supported HRC from the start. If you check the records, you'll see that she has had (and continues to have) the support of large numbers of Democrats, as evidenced by her poll numbers "at the start" and her fundraising.

Second, I don't recall being "convinced" by anyone other than myself that Obama was the best candidate. And I know plenty of others who reached that conclusion based on a lot of thought as well.

As for whether other candidates could have defeated McCain, that's hard to say. Presumably they would've had garnered the support of Democrats if they got the nomination. Only problem -- they didn't garner the support of Democrats to get the nomination. And the idea that Kucinich could defeat McCain is laughable. He barely held on to win his own district's primary. If you think Kucinich would have been a stronger candidate than either HRC or Obama, you're not a conspiracy nut, you're just delusional.

[tucsonlib]

34. Re: Since you asked

At last, a fairly rational response. (Though the insults in the subject line and at the end were unnecessary.)
As for Kucinich, he consistently scored highest in nearly every independent poll, and viewers of the early debates consistently declared him the "winner". Were you aware of this? No? You can thank the MSM.

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. What are these independent polls of which you speak?

The ones with Kucinich coming top? And don't refer to something self-selected, like polls on DU.

[tucsonlib]

40. Re: What are these independent polls of which you speak?

You could Google it. But here are a few links. There are lots more.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=249126
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/29898
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/440699/shocking_results_from_national_poll.html
http://mwcnews.net/content/view/19036/42/

[muriel_volestrangler]

45. OK, let's look at them:

1st link: self-selecting poll
2nd link: straw poll
3rd link: same poll as #1
4th link: straw poll

None of the polls were in anyway meaningful, outside the opinions of those who chose to register their support for a candidate in them. They are 'independent' in the sense of 'unrelated to what Democratic registered voters actually think'.

[tucsonlib]

50. Polls

I could give you half-a-dozen additional poll results (Sorry about the duplicate - I was rushed), but you'd just find fault with those, too. Admit it, you'd dismiss any poll that yielded results with which you disagreed.
Point is, most Americans never even saw the results of many polls, thanks to censorship exercised by the MSM.

[muriel_volestrangler]

51. No, I'd look for polls that get a representative result from all Democratic voters

Online polls are hopeless - they just tell you who hears about them, who can be bothered to visit a website, or who can be bothered to rig them (just look up the terms "freep this poll" and "DU this poll"). Polls of people based on a mailing list may give a reasonable result for the subsection of society who wanted to be on that mailing list in the first place, but not always; and proper polls find out other details about people, and use them to work out if there are groups of people under-represented in the answers they're getting (eg - are men or women more concerned about giving out their address? If either group is, then just asking a mailing list to reply on 'who will you vote for?' won't match up with the group of people who will actually vote).

Anyone can set up a straw poll, but it takes thought and care to do a representative poll.

[onenote]

52. and I could give you the results of online/straw polls in which HRC or Obama crushed Kucinich

and those polls got no play in the MSM either -- why, because online polls and straw polls such as the ones you cited (and assuming you could find a half dozen additional results, which I doubt) are worthless.

[tucsonlib]

56. Doubt No Longer

Here are more poll results, relevant links and other assorted goodies. Apologies for any duplicate stories.
And now, can we stop concentrating on the Kucinich portion of the OP, and focus back on the more central points of my comment? If it will help, pretend that the word "Kucinich" has been deleted from the post.

http://www.intosanity.com/?p=26
http://mengbomin.wordpress.com/2007/08/20/kucinich-takes-the-abc-news-online-poll/
http://politics.propeller.com/story/2007/11/05/kucinich-tops-leading-dems-in-key-ca-straw-poll
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/11/kucinich_wins_pulse_poll/
http://dailyscare.com/2688/long-shot-kucinich-scores-77-in-independent-voter-poll
http://creativeyouth.net/erasedpolls.html
http://whazgoinon.wordpress.com/2008/01/08/media-censorship-of-kucinich-just-what-polls-has-kucnich-won/

[onenote]

57. glad you apologized for duplicates, since that's mostly what you've posted

Three stories about the post-Iowa debate online poll and one about the Washington State straw poll which you'd already cited.

But here's another one just to help you out. I'm sure you'll agree its just as valid as the polls you've cited:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/10/stephen_colbert_outpolls_ron_paul_and_dennis_kucinich/

[tucsonlib]

60. Mostly?

At this link alone there are more than a dozen different poll results.

http://wordpress.com/tag/washington-state-democrats/

And now, once again, may I request that we put the Kucinich controversy to rest, and address the more central points of the OP? I believe I've successfully defended the "Kucinich question".

[onenote]

63. ROFL!! Those are some fine polls you've cited there

I particularly like the one where DK crushed Higgins Hartmann -- who is Thom Hartmann's cat. Yep, you've certainly "defended" the "Kucinich question". Thanks for the good laugh!

http://www.thomhartmann.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=290&Itemid=118

(Oh,and btw, it appears that of the 12 different polls listed in that one link, at least five of them are dupes of other polls you've cited: virginia, washington, pulse, abc/iowa debate, etc.)

If you can't see how ridiculous your reliance on these "polls" is, well, I guess the real world will get by without you.

[tucsonlib]

68. Re: Thanks for the good laugh

You're welcome.
Now,
I never "relied" on polls for anything. For some reason you and a few other myopic posters on this thread zeroed in on the one mention I made of Kucinich in the OP. You all took the position that Kucinich had few supporters and could never beat McCain - Talk about a clueless, baseless opinion. Kucinich had a much larger base than the MSM ever let on, and I think I proved that point. But the bigger issue is the way Kucinich and all the other candidates were marginalized, derided or ignored by the MSM. Do us all a favor, okay? Pretend like the name "Kucinich" was never mentioned in the OP. Now, do you have any sort of intelligent, reasoned rebuttals to any of the major issues I raised? And here's the hard part: Think you could make your case without stooping to using insults or name-calling?
Come on. Dazzle me with your intelligence and insight.

[onenote]

46. online/straw polls: not proof of anything.

Least reliable indicators. Ron Paul won the Washington State straw poll. I can find any number of straw polls won by HRC, Obama, etc etc.

I live in Virginia. I have voted for and donated to Democratic candidates all my life. But there is no party "registration" in Virginia and I never got any information about the Virginia straw poll, which is some indication of how reliable an indicator of actual support such polls really are.

[cali]

38. Prove it. Stop saying you can prove this and that and provide

some links. Otherwise, people may justly conclude that you're bullshitting.

[tucsonlib]

41. Re: Prove it.

You can start with the links provided in comment #40.
And I'm sure you and the others on this thread will understand why I will no longer respond to your ignorant, infantile, insulting, insipid posts. Bye now...

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[Thrill]

36. The Repukes are going to steal the thing in Nov.

Nothing has been done about these voting machines.

[cali]

39. They didn't steal 2006

and I don't think they'll be able to steal it this year either.

[Buzz Clik]

42. The latter.

I know plenty of Hillary fans.

[Freddie Stubbs]

44. "A trained gerbil should be able to beat McCain?"

Is McCain that much weaker of a candidate than Bush was in 2004? Was Kerry a worse candidate than a trained gerbil?

[tucsonlib]

69. Yes, McCain IS That Much Weaker

First of all, I'm not all that certain that Kerry lost, are you? Secondly, in 2004 the Iraq war was less than 2 years old, and the economy was still somewhat healthy. Today, Bush has an approval rating of 28%, the Iraq war is finally being recognized for the catastrophe it's always been, and gas is $4.00 a gallon. And here's John McCain, promising more of the same.
Regardless of who becomes the Democratic nominee, McCain will be (or at least should be} absolutely pulverized in the debates. The only way the Republicans could retain the White House would be to steal the election. And the only way they could get away with it would be if Clinton or an equally vulnerable candidate was their opponent.
Recently, even Rush and Faux News has been admitting that Clinton is and always has been the Republicans' dream opponent.
So yes, in a fair election I would still put my money on the gerbil.

[BigDDem]

47. Since you asked....you are a conspiracy nut

enjoy Costa Rica, the coffee there is excellent.

[rodeodance]

48. HERE IS THE OBAMA 'dem for the day" tactic:

"We give them two forms - one to change their registration now for the primary and one so they can switch back later,"BO volunteer revealing the true goals of the campaign
http://www.smh.com.au/news/us-election/tenbedroom-house-now-home-for-obamas-volunteer-army/2008/03/20/1205602581838.html

[Evergreen Emerald]

49. Here it comes. When Clinton wins--"we was robbed" When Obama wins

Not one question about the results.

ohbrother.

[HuffleClaw]

53. very well put

a fine analysis. some people have known this from the beginning but have been ignored. considering how the media has been manipulating things throughout bush's reign this really should have not been a surprise but for some reason the vast majority seems to have fallen for this ruse quite happily.

[tucsonlib]

58. Re: very well put

Are you sure about this? Have you read the other comments I've been receiving? Why do you hate America?

:toast:

[tucsonlib]

79. Update ~ A Changing Tide of Opinion

In stark contrast to the dismissive, condescending replies which have dominated this thread, I've been surprised to see a whole slew of new postings in the GDP which support one or more of the major points I tried to make in my OP:

A. That Clinton has always been the GOP's dream opponent.

B. That the GOP has been doing all they can to guarantee that Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee.

C. That the Democrats have once again taken the bait, and are eating their own.

D. That despite the absurd notion that the Republicans could win in November (given the overwhelming majority of Americans who are are screaming for major change), a McCain presidency (legitimate, or more likely, illegitimate) is a very real possibility.

E. That the American people will, once again, allow it happen.

Equally surprising is that the replies to these new posts have been mostly positive. Could it be that the Democrats are finally waking up to what's happening? Will they do anything about it? And is it too late?

p.s.
Oops. Meant to make this a reply to the OP.

:banghead:

[TragedyandHope]

54. Don't rain on our parade.

A defeatist attitude never does anyone any good.

[QC]

59. It doesn't require a conspiracy. Our primary process nearly always eliminates the strongest

candidates first and then leaves us with the weakest.

We have given enormous power to two tiny, lily-white statelets where winning has little to do with mass appeal and everything to do with pandering to special interests, like the ethanol lobby in Iowa--next time you pay five bucks for a box of cereal, be sure to thank them.

The candidates who do promise the most government subsidies to the local farmers come out of those states with all the media hype, which makes it almost impossible for anyone else to have a chance. In a week or two, we are generally down to two mediocre candidates, who then get beaten like rented mules in November, and we wonder what happened again.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

[tucsonlib]

62. Bravo!

A refreshing (if that's the word), original theory. Food for thought, indeed! (And nearly as depressing as my version of events.)
:toast:

[JANdad]

71. sniff, sniff...

You are sooooo right...
:cry:

[WA98070]

61. I've said there is no Democrat in this race since it was three. Edwards was close ...

but still was too much for corporations.

[lojasmo]

64. My county DFL chair entheusiastically supported Clinton from the start.

But she's got terrible instincts.

Smart, and a hard worker, but TERRIBLE instincts.

[tucsonlib]

65. Thanks

That's two folks we now know of who supported Clinton from the start. Guess that blows my theory all to hell.....
:hippie:

[crankychatter]

74. You can get a French Colonial Mansion in Ho Chi Minh City for chump change

Costa Rica is for fat old white people, afraid of a little socialism.

Consider Dominica... the island nation... not the Dominican Republic

I would LOVE to go there and stay... not cheap but OMG

mmm mmm mmm

You are paranoid

but that doesn't mean they're not out to get you

[tucsonlib]

75. Thanks For the Advice!

I'll check it out. Would I have to learn to speak Dominicanish?

[crankychatter]

76. former british protectorate... English and Creole are spoken

very ecologically conscious... you can buy citizenship... I forget now... I think 5k... then you can buy property

it's expensive on the South but that's for tourists... the ships stop there and disgorge tourists periodically

it's a European "eco-tour" hot spot... which is really quite funny

[Jamastiene]

77. Sometimes, ya feel like a nut.

Sometimes, ya don't. You sound nuts alright. :crazy: :tinfoilhat:

[tucsonlib]

78. Ah, Just What We Needed

Another sharply written, intelligent critique. Another worthy contribution to this public discourse. Kudos!

[tucsonlib]

80. Update ~ A Changing Tide of Opinion

In stark contrast to the dismissive, condescending replies which have dominated this thread, I've been surprised to see a whole slew of new postings in the GDP which support one or more of the major points I tried to make in my OP:

A. That Clinton has always been the GOP's dream opponent.

B. That the GOP has been doing all they can to guarantee that Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee.

C. That the Democrats have once again taken the bait, and are eating their own.

D. That despite the absurd notion that the Republicans could win in November (given the overwhelming majority of Americans who are are screaming for major change), a McCain presidency (legitimate, or more likely, illegitimate) is a very real possibility.

E. That the American people will, once again, allow it happen.

Equally surprising is that the replies to these new posts have been mostly positive. Could it be that the Democrats are finally waking up to what's happening? Will they do anything about it? And is it too late?