rucky
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-12-06 10:28 PM
Original message |
OK, I'll ask the burning question... |
k8conant
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-12-06 10:31 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Maybe they forgot to... |
|
or didn't realize they would need to or maybe they just didn't cheat enough!
|
bobbieinok
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-12-06 10:31 PM
Response to Original message |
2. they did - check out posts in 'election reform' and |
|
the responses to Skinner's thread of numbers to call if you run into voting problems.
|
Jackpine Radical
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-12-06 10:32 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Just not enough.
Too many people were clued in on electronic voting, etc. Nevertheless, there were a lot of discrepancies between final votes and exit polls, with the same mysterious tendency to favor Puggies. Overall, it looks like they were able to cheat their way into about 5% more of the vote than they actually got. It wasn't enough to stop the landslide.
|
texpatriot2004
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-12-06 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
7. Exactly. It's hard to steal votes when the turnout is so high and |
Pushed To The Left
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-12-06 10:32 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Randi Rhodes always says that Democrats have to win decisively enough that it won't be close enough to steal! That may very well have happened last Tuesday!
|
ret5hd
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-12-06 10:33 PM
Response to Original message |
5. i'm of two minds on this... |
|
option 1) they did, but it wasn't enough to beat our overwhelming numbers
option 2) they didn't, because they realize that printing $3 Billion per day for the last few years is going to collapse the economy and it is best if Dems are blamed.
|
Stardust
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-12-06 10:33 PM
Response to Original message |
|
We were told all along that if the number divide was large enough, they couldn't flip the votes. I've heard several times that the landslide was much greater than it appears because of electronic irregularities.
|
porphyrian
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-12-06 10:35 PM
Response to Original message |
8. I'll kick this for the answer. - n/t |
seabeyond
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-12-06 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
12. you have been given a number of answers above your post, so... |
|
Edited on Sun Nov-12-06 10:55 PM by seabeyond
i have to assume you ignore it to keep saying.... waiting waiting waiting for an answer. no one gonna answer. so i was right and all were wrong
odd
btw, i think they tried with mo and vg at least.... time may tell
|
porphyrian
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-12-06 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
18. If nothing else, you are consistent. |
|
I didn't say I was kicking it because no one had answered it. I said I was kicking it for the answer, as in so-people-can-see-the-answer. I thought the meaning was obvious.
|
seabeyond
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-12-06 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #18 |
23. i am lmao. i really dont look at names. you just |
|
say the stupidest things. there was another thread, i read what you said, about all the liberal nanny threads. again another stupid. i was going to post on that one and caught your name. so i didnt post. didnt see it on this one. look,... you say you are waiting for hte answer. people have given it to you. what is it BUT stupid. can i help what you post. i cant. sorry. do better. but i really do not look at a name when i post
|
porphyrian
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-12-06 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #23 |
25. Yeah, I'm the one saying stupid things. Case in point. - n/t |
seabeyond
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-13-06 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #25 |
26. so, tell me. did you read the other posts and get your answer? n/t |
The Velveteen Ocelot
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-12-06 10:45 PM
Response to Original message |
9. I'm sure they did. Just not enough. |
Straight Shooter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-12-06 10:46 PM
Response to Original message |
10. Question doesn't even ignite a spark for me. You *know* they tried. |
|
They couldn't overcome the numbers of votes against them. When Rove said he had "the" math, he was already throwing down the gauntlet that they were going to win and it would be because he was so savvy about the campaign.
Remember in 2004, Rove said, "Their (poll) numbers don't match my numbers." And Cheney said, "Kerry has the crowds, but we have the votes," as he smirked and turned away from the interviewer.
|
BlooInBloo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-12-06 10:48 PM
Response to Original message |
11. It's another benefit of the 50 state strategy. Cheating doesn't scale well. |
|
That's another reason why the DINO strategy is so stupid - as long as Democrats focussed only on 15-20 seats, the lack of scalability of cheating wasn't a problem.
Rather like a football defense that has a great left-side, but weak right-side. If the offense never goes to the D's right, their weakness there doesn't hurt them. The offense has to stretch the field in order to exploit the D's weaknesses.
|
gully
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-12-06 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
drm604
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-12-06 10:55 PM
Response to Original message |
13. I think it's possible that they did |
|
and that we nearly lost the Senate because of it.
Why isn't Allen asking for a recount? Could it be because they fear their cheating would be exposed?
|
gully
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-12-06 10:55 PM
Response to Original message |
14. The media was watching and they didn't expect to have to cheat |
|
in as many areas. I don't think they had the infrastructure?
|
leftofthedial
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-12-06 10:57 PM
Response to Original message |
|
there is still an unexplained discrepancy of 4% to 15% between polls, exit polls and the results
|
Jcrowley
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-12-06 11:00 PM
Response to Original message |
|
and still lost. That's how much of a landslide this was.
Paper trail or bust in 2008.
|
ellenfl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-12-06 11:30 PM
Response to Original message |
19. ditto . . . i believe they cheated but, as i told my mom, |
|
Edited on Sun Nov-12-06 11:32 PM by ellenfl
the opposing votes were so overwhelming that they couldn't respond without getting caught.
what's the deal with lieberman getting exactly the same number of votes this year as he did last election? any truth to that?
btw, one of the freepers on my other political site is crowing that lieberman is signaling he might switch parties. except for the war, joementum would be much too liberal for them.
ellen fl
|
tinrobot
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-12-06 11:35 PM
Response to Original message |
20. Of course they cheated |
|
...but cheating only works when it's close.
|
donco6
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-12-06 11:38 PM
Response to Original message |
21. Like everything else - they failed. eom |
Zorra
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-12-06 11:41 PM
Response to Original message |
22. With all the corruption scandals, and media attention to evoting |
|
and voter fraud, maybe they figured they couldn't get away with it this time.
We need to get rid of all electronic voting machines before 2008.
|
jen4clark
(812 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-12-06 11:50 PM
Response to Original message |
24. Who says "they" didn't? |
mw
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-13-06 12:07 AM
Response to Original message |
27. THey didn't think they had to. "The" math said they won. n/t |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sun May 12th 2024, 06:45 AM
Response to Original message |