NEW MCM: Our Rigged Elections

[mod mom]

OUR RIGGED ELECTIONS
The Elephant in the Polling Booth
By Mark Crispin Miller | 10/01/2006

To say that this election could go either way is not to say that the Republicans have any chance of winning it. As a civic entity responsive to the voters' will, the party's over, there being no American majority that backs it, or that ever would. Bush has left the GOP in much the same condition as Iraq, Afghanistan, the global climate, New Orleans, the Bill of Rights, our military, our economy and our national reputation. Thus the regime is reviled as hotly by conservatives as by liberals, nor do any moderates support it.

So slight is Bush's popularity that his own party's candidates for Congress are afraid to speak his name or to be seen with him (although their numbers, in the aggregate, are even lower than his). It seems the only citizens who still have any faith in him are those who think God wants us to burn witches and drive SUVs. For all their zeal, such theocratic types are not in the majority, not even close, and thus there's no chance that the GOP can get the necessary votes.

And so the Democrats are feeling good, and calling for a giant drive to get the vote out on Election Day. Such an effort is essential-and not just to the Democrats but to the very survival of this foundering Republic. However, such a drive will do the Democrats, and all the rest of us, more harm than good if it fails to note a certain fact about our current situation: i.e., that the Democrats are going to lose the contest in November, even though the people will (again) be voting for them. The Bush Republicans are likely to remain in power despite the fact that only a minority will vote to have them there. That, at any rate, is what will happen if we don't start working to pre-empt it now.

Even though this election could go either way, neither way will benefit the Democrats. Either the Republicans will steal their "re-election" on Election Day, just as they did two years ago, or they will slime their way to "victory" through force and fraud and strident propaganda, as they did after Election Day 2000. Whichever strategy they use, the only way to stop it is to face it, and then shout so long and loud about it that the people finally perceive, at last, that their suspicions are entirely just-and, this time, just say no.

-snip

http://www.washingtonspectator.com/
http://www.washingtonspectator.com/printArticle.cfm

[mod mom]

1. updated link! so sorry.

[DeeDeeNY]

2. This should be Topic No. 1

There is absolutely nothing more important to our
country than fair elections, and it needs to be kept
in the forefront of any discussion on whether the
Dems can take back Congress.

[mod mom]

3. Welcome to DU DeeDeeNY, you are correct. Glad you found your way to ER

forum.

:hi:

[DeeDeeNY]

4. Thanks.

After reading "Fooled Again" this summer, I am
trying to convince everyone I know just what is
going on. It's really scary.

:hi:

[texpatriot2004]

5. K & R for Transparent Democracy nm

[Awsi Dooger]

6. Mark Crispin Miller is a farce

His articles and books are nothing but wimpy rehashes alledging fraud, knowing he has tapped into a huge base that blindly laps that up. Facts or lack of facts is completely irrelevant. It's just like Ann Coulter, laughing all the way to the bank with the latest hatchet job.

Let's see MCM predict something. Go out on a limp. Am I supposed to be impressed with "could go either way..."?

A pathetic guy like that gives himself an out unless Democrats sweep every close race. Since that is inevitably not going to happen he will latch onto the close losses and assert the Democrat had a huge lead and only pure theft changed the result. Notice the crap regarding 2002. He embraces asinine numbers as supposed poll leads. I was particularly amused with his claim that Strickland led Allard by 9 in Colorado.

That was shortly after I joined DU. For six weeks prior to that election one of the things I emphasized most was that we had a chance to retain the senate, but Strickland was never going to defeat Allard, no matter what the polls said or how much we wanted to pretend otherwise. I took plenty of flack for it including shouts of troll, but I also was able to handicap the posters here who had real world knowledge and were not pure cheerleaders. They backed up what I was saying, that the key demographic factors all pointed to Allard and he would likely exceed his poll numbers and win comfortably.

For MCM to propose Strickland was ahead by 9 points gives me even less respect for him than I had yesterday, and I wasn't sure that was possible.

Here's a summary of that polling from the eve of the race. Notice that it was only Zogby who gave Strickland any type of lead in that range, and this commenter dismissed it as "ridiculous," predicting Allard would win. Yet MCM provides the 9 point number as a supposed base margin, which is disgracefully misleading but I'm anything but surprised: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Congressional/Senate_02_Polls.html

"This race is so difficult to call. There is no question that the Allard poll numbers for an incumbent are terrible, and usually these type of numbers correspond with a loss. Zogby's supposed nine point lead for Strickland two days ago was ridiculous. His last poll gives Strickland a five point lead, we think the last Gallup poll showing Allard with a two point lead is closer to the truth. Bottom line, in the end, we give the edge to Allard because this is a Republican leaning state and the Republicans are going to win the Governor's race in a landslide. Allard 49% - Strickland 48%.

[OnTheOtherHand]

10. actually, I think you are misreading him in some ways

I still like Mark Crispin Miller, although I've certainly lost some respect given his apparent inability to engage the arguments of people who disagree with him. His ad hominems about folks being unwilling to face the terrifying truth strike me as an unworthy substitute for actual thought, but I think he actually believes what he says. We all tend to make up little stories about people who disagree with us. However, I think it speaks to MCM's decency that even his ad hominems are often relatively generous ones, the bizarrely misplaced condescension notwithstanding. I wish it would cross the man's mind that maybe some of us actually know something that he and his friends don't. Maybe that gets harder once one goes on a book tour.

Anyway, I'm not sure, but I thought the point of his article was that the Democrats will actually get more votes, but the Republicans will inevitably end up controlling Congress; the only question is whether the votes will be stolen on (and/or before) election day, or after election day. So, that's a prediction, isn't it? (I'm not sure that's what he means, but I think it is.)

The problem is, this prediction isn't likely to be treated as a hypothesis test; no fraud prediction ever is likely to be treated that way. Some folks around here thought Kaine wouldn't be allowed to win Virginia in 2005, but I don't remember (although it may have happened) a single person saying, 'Maybe the vote counts are cleaner than I thought.' My conditional prediction -- in which I hope to be proven wrong -- is that if Democrats take back the House, MCM will not admit to having been wrong about anything, because he is unlikely to believe that he was fundamentally wrong about anything. (One can always come up with reasons why the forces of darkness chose not to steal a particular election.) Unfortunately, I don't presently share his preternatural confidence that the Dems will get more votes. The guy is spending too much time with friendly audiences who are paying to hear him talk; this is not conducive to sound judgment about national politics.

Yeah, it's ridiculous for MCM to say flatly that Strickland led by 9 in CO in 2002. Of course, RealClearPolitics is not exactly a neutral observer, either, but AFAIK the poll numbers there are accurate.

Oh, let's back up. MCM writes: "That Bush/Cheney stole their 're-election' is not a 'theory' but a fact that has by now been proved beyond the shadow of a doubt." With that, MCM basically declares war on the entire profession of political science, so he had better bring something better than misplaced condescension. What does he have? The Conyers report, which doesn't claim that the election was stolen; the DNC report, which doesn't claim that the election was stolen; Fitrakis et al., which he describes as "reconfirm(ing)" the Conyers report and giving evidence of additional fraud; his own writing; Freeman and Bleifuss's warmed-over exit poll crap; Palast on New Mexico (which may be rock solid -- I haven't read it yet -- but NM did not decide the election) ; RFK Jr.'s article, which was sort of a mish-mash of the above. It makes me sad that MCM apparently has no clue why this doesn't amount to proof beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Oh, and as a bonus, MCM claims that the DNC report concluded that "there was no fraud." No, it doesn't. What a bizarre misstatement that is. Does he really not see any middle ground between "there was no fraud" and his professed knowledge that the election was stolen, or does he just not care? Yikes. This one is especially unfortunate because MCM is driving wedges between himself and some political scientists who are most concerned about the possibility of vote-counting fraud. I guess there is an element of farce there after all. But at least he doesn't remind me of Ann Coulter.

I guess, bottom line, I thought farce was supposed to be funny. MCM apparently has no idea why he makes so many reality-based data analysts so spitting mad, and I suppose there is humor in that from a distance, but I lack that distance.

[mod mom]

11. OTOH, The investigators that MCM quotes have delved into the election at

the precinct level and directly with the voters. They attempted to bring their case to court but as you know the OH Supreme Court dismissed it. Was it due to lack of merit or perhaps due to the make-up of the court? Here is a revealing article that was in the NYT's:

Campaign Cash Mirrors a High Court's Rulings
By Adam Liptak and Janet Roberts
The New York Times

Sunday 01 October 2006


Columbus, Ohio - In the fall of 2004, Terrence O'Donnell, an affable judge with the placid good looks of a small-market news anchor, was running hard to keep his seat on the Ohio Supreme Court. He was also considering two important class-action lawsuits that had been argued many months before.

In the weeks before the election, Justice O'Donnell's campaign accepted thousands of dollars from the political action committees of three companies that were defendants in the suits. Two of the cases dealt with defective cars, and one involved a toxic substance. Weeks after winning his race, Justice O'Donnell joined majorities that handed the three companies significant victories.

Justice O'Donnell's conduct was unexceptional. In one of the cases, every justice in the 4-to-3 majority had taken money from affiliates of the companies. None of the dissenters had done so, but they had accepted contributions from lawyers for the plaintiffs.

-snip

An examination of the Ohio Supreme Court by The New York Times found that its justices routinely sat on cases after receiving campaign contributions from the parties involved or from groups that filed supporting briefs. On average, they voted in favor of contributors 70 percent of the time. Justice O'Donnell voted for his contributors 91 percent of the time, the highest rate of any justice on the court.

-snip

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/100106A.shtml

Funny, but seasoned attorneys RFK Jr and Mike Papantonio were convinced by their findings, but obviously not you. Have you reviewed the mountain of evidence that has been obtained? Are you interested in reviewing it? These guys are not just shooting off their mouths, but have collected the evidence and have attempted to bring it to court. The impedence to the process came from Republicans.

[OnTheOtherHand]

12. mod mom, am I still on your ignore list? can you read my posts? do you?

You informed me that you were putting me on it; have you taken me off? Or are you actually asking questions that you can't read the answers to?

You seem to be under the impression that I have insisted that no fraud or miscounting took place in Ohio. I've never said that, and I don't believe it. So you are completely missing or misrepresenting my position. I confess that this annoys me. Of course, if you can't actually read my posts, it would be understandable.

[Kip Humphrey]

7. SPREAD THE WORD - Hold a screening of STEALING AMERICA: Vote by Vote

in your city or town.


VISIT http://www.stealingamerica.org:

$5.00 for individuals (plus $5 S/H)
$18.99 for libraries and institutions (plus $7 S/H)

Donations to help underwrite this outreach are tax deductible above the cost of the DVD(s).

Until November 1st, Concentric Media will be taking orders and shipping DVDs of "STEALING AMERICA: Vote by Vote" and are basically a donation from Concentric Media to support your efforts.

After that date, orders will go through and be fulfilled by Direct Cinema Limited and the price will be considerably higher to cover the real costs of manufacture, shipping and handling.

If you are planning to host a screening, please let us know so we can add that information to our website.

[liberalla]

9. Thanks for this info! $5 is a deal!

I'm going to get about 6 to share with interested parties/groups.

Thanks again.

[farmboxer]

8. The Republican Manufactured And Programmed Voting Machines

Bush & Pals appear to be counting on them. Republicans don't have to worry about the voters if they get to use their voting machines, which is why they are in favor of them, want to count the votes in secret, etc., all they have to do is hack the vote once again!

Democrats will win the election with a huge landslide, if the voting machines can be stopped. I hope something can be done before Repubs steal the election once again. I will vote though, in spite of the Republican manufactured and programmed voting machines! I just hope we can get exit polls, again, Republicans do not want exit polls, gee, I wonder why?

If only President Gore had been allowed to have taken office after winning the election. The entire world would be a different place. I don't worry about the voters, just the damned voting machines & other frauds. At least we are hearing about the damned voting machines on the MSM, but not enough.