"W" is bigger than God (Ronald Reagan)

[RaulVB]

- Ronald Reagan's totals for the 2 elections he won are:


1980: 43,901,812 (50.7%)

1984: 54,455,472 (58.77%)

* A 10.5 millions of votes increase (aprox)


- "W" totals in the 2 elections he "was awarded victory" are:


2000: 50,456,169 (48%)

2004: 60.200.000 (51%)

* A 9.7 millions of votes increase!!!


Just 800.000 votes short of "God's" mark...and you want me to believe that this shit is possible?

You can say what you want, but quit being naive.

There is no way in hell that this moron did comparatively better than Reagan that ran almost without contest the second time, sorry to say that.

So, go to bed thinking that you live in democracy but...watch your back when you wake up tomorrow...

[imenja]

1. the population has increased

The population has grown since the Reagan era. Raw numbers aren't the way to judge their relatively popularity. Also remember that the 1980 election was a three candidate race: Carter, Reagan and John Anderson.

[RaulVB]

2. Ignoring the obvious

As usual.

Look, what you wrote is part of my own considerations already.

"W" is a very unpopular president, he has the American economy on the ropes, a trade deficit of cataclismic proportions, 1300 GIs killed, 11.000 severely wounded or mutilated, MEDICARE is dead, he will not pay social security benefits to millions of "baby boomers", corrupt officials, mendacity, a war of choice that has eaten up 200 billions...

You may want to believe that he "won"...sorry, "W" didn't.

[Old and In the Way]

3. Only way to truly know.

Canvass selected precincts and see if people will reaffirm their vote, independent of Republican vote machines and Republican counters. Lets see if their is a statistical varience outside the margin of error for these sampled precincts.

Personally, I cannot believe that Bush could have gotten anywhere near the votes claimed. But the only way to validate or refute that belief is to conduct our own scientific repolling of the vote. The DNC ought to do it for a number of reasons-

(1) To prove or disprove the result. Either way, it's important for Democrats to understand and will help provide the roadmap for the future. If we won, it's not our message, candidate, or vision that needs fixing....it's the corrupted system. If we lost, OK. We won't be wasting valuable time thinking it was stolen.

(2) It shows concrete action by the Democrats....that they are figting for us.


(3) This polling could be expanded to more include other questions to help Democrats understand the expectation and priorities of the rank-and-file.

[juajen]

5. I have posted this suggestion in at least three other threads

I agree with you. Some good canvassing of the vote door to door could prove illuminating.

[imenja]

6. I like your idea

I've thought about doing the same thing. Do you know of anyone who is actively planning something like this? I'm in Florida. I'd love to help.
I think it could be accomplished over the phone, with verified voter registration lists. Do you think it's necessary to go door to door? It's always difficult to find people at home or get them to answer the door, perhaps more so here in South Florida.

[Old and In the Way]

7. I think it needs a higher level of authenticity.

I think it should be done by the Party, or better yet, a nuetral organization like the League of Women Voters. I think each person's results should be recorded and attested via a validated affidavit.

To do it properly, it should be announced weeks in advance and a proper canvassing done to try and get 100% of the voters in selected precincts to opt in. Of course, it should be open to all voters and we should also count the results of anonymous pollees as a separate category. This is one poll where it wouldn't make any sense to freep. I'm sure there were plenty of Republicans who voted for Kerry, too.....certainly, we would want to control for voter's registration.

To me, this is the only way we can assure ourselves of the 2004 election results.

Secret ballots cast on Republican machines, counted under rules by Republican election officials, and announced/analysed by Republican corporate media is a recipe for Republican government....forever.

[RaulVB]

11. But...

Would those Republicans declare that they voted for Kerry?

When the results are in everybody wants to be with the "winner."

[Old and In the Way]

18. I think there were lots of Republicans who voted for Kerry.

Conjecture on my part, but the easiest votes to steal are registered Republicans. If the classical Republican is as sane as I think he/she is, then they probably voted for Kerry. If they are wondering if their vote was stolen, they should be as motivated as we are to see if the results are valid.

[MarkusQ]

9. I'd chip in to help fund that! (n/t)

[imenja]

4. what did I write?

I merely point out some obvious facts missing from your post. Nothing else. Don't invent arguments for the sake of it, please. How tiresome.
The OBVIOUS implication of my correction was that there is no reason to assume Bush is more popular because his raw vote total is higher. I never said anything remotely favorable about Bush. You're talking to the voices in your own head, not me.

[RaulVB]

10. Point taken

But I already considered the three way races on my comments.

Bush-Gore-Nader 2000, Bush-Kerry-Nader 2004, makes Bush's "totals" even harder to accept as valid.

And you go tell that to the Republicans. The manipulation of the results and their claim of a "mandate" are based on those "60 millions they got".

And about "inventing," it would be a lot healthier if you focus your argument in the reality level. Guessing about my intentions is not serious, IMO.

Regards.

[imenja]

12. When did I ever claim a Republican mandate?

I find this supremely irritating. It's clear Bush got no where near the support Reagan did, even if we assume we got the numbers election officials claim. Reagan won 58% of the vote in his re-election and took every state except Minnesota (where I was a voter at the time).
I have never argued any of the points you raise. Lodge your complaints with Sean Hannity. Worry about your own grip on reality rather than criticizing mine.
There is all kinds of new evidence that helps the case for election fraud, including yesterday's testimony of the Fla congressman before the Conyers commission. It's difficult to imagine that anyone would cite the the 1980 and 1984 elections as evidence when so much else is available.

[RaulVB]

13. Since YOU ARE NOT writing my notes, your reply is rather silly (n/t)

[imenja]

14. What on earth are you saying?

Mine is silly? Your defies comprehension. Clearly you've developed some sort of personal dislike of me, yet it doesn't seem to be based on anything I've actually written.

[RaulVB]

15. You are fighting against yourself

Stop the second guessing. That requires therapy. Nasty habit, indeed.

[imenja]

16. it's your fight

I cited some facts, you picked a fight based on nothing I had actually said. Insults don't strengthen your case. I suggest we call a truce. I have no problem with a spirited disagreement based on a difference of opinion, but I'm not going to defend positions that aren't my own. You obviously have no desire to understand anything I say, and I can't begin to understand someone who invents arguments out of thin air rather than basing them on something I have actually written.

[RaulVB]

17. Ok, is a truce then

No need to argue artificially, I agree.

[Clark2008]

8. Can we get him to say that he's bigger than God so

we can burn his albums...

Whoops! Sorry, wrong decade. :)