I Remember some were saying Election 2004 was stolen...

[John_Mace]

@BobLibDem

I think McCain’s time is past. He might have been a strong choice in 2000, but he turns 72 on 8/29/08. Four more years of Father Time beating on him is going to make him seem too old for the job, especially if Edwards is his opponent.

I don’t get the Republican adoration of Condi. Put her on the ticket against a southern Democrat, and a lot of southern red states are going to look a lot bluer. Her close ties to Bush and total inability to utter a discouraging word about his policies are going to cost her.

We’ve of course got a long way to go and speculating about nominees now is a bit like predicting the papal election.

Reagan was 69 when he was firest elected, and that was 25 years ago. Maybe 72 is the new 69.

Edwards is a light weight. Yeah, Bush is/was a light weight, too, but he was kind of the right place at the right time. Besides, it’s going to be Hillary at the head of the ticket.

Put Condi as the VP, and that draws women and Blacks to the GOP. If it only by a small amount, that’s exactly where the GOP is weak electorially. She makes the perfect VP candidate.

[annaplurabelle]

@tomndebb

Direct (or strongly implied) claims that a poster is stupid or insane are not appropriate to Great Debates. Please refrain from such statements in GD.

[ /Moderator Mode ]

You are correct in that we are not here to fight personality disorders.
Too bad there are no rules for a history of disingenuous and non-productive posts in GD. Or willfull ignorance. Or targetting posters who call them on it.
**“Whether you like it or not, Ohio is where it’s at in this election.”

• Karl Rove, addressing the Ohio delegates at the 2004 RNC convention.**

"Karl Rove had said Ohio would be the “Ground Zero” of the election and, not for the first time, he was right.

All summer long pundits had predicted that the election, so close in so many ways, would come down to Ohio."

August 31, 2004
Wooing of a key state

Ohio delegates find themselves the belles and beaus of the ball, with perks, prime seats and prominence

Ohio always is an important state, but in a race that looks as tight as the 2000 contest, its 20 electoral votes may be crucial.

We are front and center on the floor. We are front and center at this convention. No state is more critical than Ohio. We are the Florida of 2004," Gov. Bob Taft told the delegation Monday morning, referring to the state that determined the outcome of the 2000 election.

Karl Rove, Bush’s senior political adviser, agreed that Ohio may be the deciding factor in November and that GOP efforts to register new Ohio voters and rally them to the polls may make the difference. “You are, like it or not, ground zero,” he told the delegation at breakfast.

Bush has made 22 visits to Ohio since January 2001–16 of them since March–and plans to return to campaign there three times in the next week.

In fact, said Jason Mauk, communications director for the Ohio Republican Party, Ohio has been told to expect either the president, Vice President Dick Cheney or their wives to be in Ohio about once a week until the Nov. 2 election.

March 5, 2004 Political insiders suggest Ohio could become as decisive this year as Florida was four years ago. Which is why the state’s plan to use paperless touch-screen voting machines has so many up in arms.

There’s solid reason behind the political rhetoric tapping Ohio as a key battleground. No Republican has ever captured the White House without carrying Ohio, and only John Kennedy managed the feat for the Democrats. In 2000, George W. Bush won in the Buckeye State by a scant four percentage points. Four years earlier, Bill Clinton won in Ohio by a similar margin.

The Wash. Times, in Sept. 2004: …Ohio, which is widely considered the most crucial state in the election.

Swaying Unhappy Ohio Voters Could Be a Key to the Presidency

NY Times - July 4, 2004 - Victory here could be pivotal: no Republican has won the presidency without carrying Ohio. No surprise, then, that Mr. Bush has visited the state 18 times since 2001.

“I don’t see how the president wins without carrying Ohio,” Gov. Bob Taft, a Republican, said.

Ohio has been a presidential bellwether for decades - and is perhaps the most closely watched swing state this year.

10/28/04: It’s Up To Ohio

You can spin a lot of scenarios in the Electoral College, but it is hard to see any way President Bush can win without carrying Ohio. No Republican has managed to take the White House – or remain – there without the Buckeye State.

So on election night I will be checking returns over the Internet and on the phone from key Ohio counties. If you want to be a real insider, set your web page to the Stark County Board of Elections. President Bush and Senator Kerry have been to Stark so many times you might think they were running for mayor of Canton, the county seat. Stark has a bit of everything: Rural voters, urban minorities, union workers, and suburban tech workers. If Bush or Kerry break out here, that is a sign that the election is not going to be as close as the polls predict.

Next week, the political center of the universe will be Logan, Columbus, Canton, Cleveland and Cincinnati, Ohio.

Thursday, July 1, 2004

Ohio epicenter of anti-Bush group’s national offensive

WASHINGTON - The top anti-Bush group in the country has spent more money in Ohio than in any other state where it operates, a study released today shows.

“This probably confirms something many Ohioans suspected: They really are the focus of the election,” said Derek Willis, who wrote the report for The Center for Public Integrity, a nonpartisan Washington group that monitors money in politics.

Ohio was the first state where America Coming Together set up campaign offices, doing so last October. Ohio is considered one of the key swing states - if not the key swing state - in the 2004 presidential election, a fact Ohioans can hardly have missed between the ads, the candidate visits, and the canvassers from groups like ACT.

Aug 1, 2004

Pollster John Zogby said there are probably 34 states that will go for the same party as in 2000. Recent polls show most of those states lean the same way as four years ago. But Ohio is a big question mark, he said.

Ohio has been a key state in presidential elections for 150 years.

As early as mid-summer national attention had focused on Lucas County and northwest Ohio as the epicenter of the election. Both candidates recognized that it could tip the election one way or the other. The reason was that the entire state was so evenly balanced between the Republicans and the Democrats, and a few thousand votes could be the margin of victory. In turn, polls showed the national tally to very closely balanced, so Ohio could determine the outcome for the entire country. In the 2000 election, 537 votes in Florida gave the election to George W. Bush over Al Gore. This year it appeared that the presidency might be decided in Ohio. Since summer Toledo was the number one target in the nation for television advertising by the Kerry campaign, and Ohio ranks nearly as high for the Republicans. Together the parties broadcast about 15,000 television advertisements. One consequence was the big increase in turnout.

White House Spokesman “Guarantees” Ohio Will Go to Bush

On The O’Reilly Factor of October 28, 2004, White House Communications Director, Dan Bartlett, dispensed with the usual “let’s wait and see what happens” stance and boldly stated that Ohio is a done deal for George Bush.

BARTLETT:“Well, it’s gonna be close. No question about it. But, what we’re seeing in our polling, what other news organizations are showing, is that President Bush - not only over the course of the campaign - has shown the capability of breaking out with a much more substantial lead. But we’ve been persistently right there. We’re gonna spend a lot of time there in the next few days and I’m confident, President’s confident, not only in our ground game but in our message there and I’m GUARANTEEING A VICTORY THERE ON TUESDAY (emphasis mine).”

O’REILLY (surprised): “You’re ‘guaranteeing’ a victory? Is that what you said, Mr. Bartlett?”

BARTLETT: “Guaranteeing.”

O’REILLY: Wow!

BARTLETT: Bank it.

Rove never graduated from college but is one of the few intellectuals in Bush’s inner circle. He prides himself on being a big thinker but has an encyclopedic knowledge of political details, down to the demographics of obscure Ohio precincts.

April 25, 2004
For Karl Rove, the president’s chief political adviser, and the rest of the Bush team, Ohio is beginning to look a lot like Florida without the oranges. The most recent polls show Bush and Kerry essentially tied there; according to the University of Cincinnati’s Ohio Poll, Bush’s approval rating in the state has dropped from a record 76 percent a year ago to 46 percent now. And it would be hard to imagine a world in which Bush could win the White House without winning Ohio (a feat, in fact, that no Republican has ever accomplished). As the election grows closer, the two sides, armed with hundreds of millions of dollars, will unleash a storm in Ohio so intense – ads on every channel, knocks on every door, mailboxes and in-boxes overflowing – that it could inspire a horror movie.

Robert Novack
Will U.S. go blue or red? Keep eye on Ohio, Florida
October 31, 2004

[BobLibDem]

@John Mace

Put Condi as the VP, and that draws women and Blacks to the GOP. If it only by a small amount, that’s exactly where the GOP is weak electorially. She makes the perfect VP candidate.

Don’t count those chickens till they hatch. Things could get complex (like Obama getting the Dem veep slot, wouldn’t that be interesting?) And I’m far from certain about Condi’s appeal. Racism is not dead by any means in this country. And votes that Condi could possibly gain from blacks might be offset by white flight away from the GOP. Whether she would have a positive or negative impact is still in doubt. I just don’t see people warming up to her. To me, she comes across as prickly and arrogant. Of course, some say that of Hillary as well (by the way, she will NOT win the nomination). Consider this combo: Bill Richardson of New Mexico and Barack Obama of Illinois. Even Reagan would have a hard time beating that.

[Shodan]

@annaplurabelle

You are correct in that we are not here to fight personality disorders.
Too bad there are no rules for a history of disingenuous and non-productive posts in GD. Or willfull ignorance. Or targetting posters who call them on it.
**“Whether you like it or not, Ohio is where it’s at in this election.”

• Karl Rove, addressing the Ohio delegates at the 2004 RNC convention.**

"Karl Rove had said Ohio would be the “Ground Zero” of the election and, not for the first time, he was right.

All summer long pundits had predicted that the election, so close in so many ways, would come down to Ohio."

Very good! Much better.

Now we can tear your cites into itty-bitty pieces.

Here we have a cite that Florida was key.

Herewe have a mention that three states are “key”, none of which is Ohio.

Here we have a mention that six states are key.

Here they cite Colorado as a key state. (Also New Mexico and Wisconsin).

And here we have a mention of “battleground states” that doesn’t even mention Ohio.

So I am afraid your notion of “everyone” knowing beyond question that Ohio was going to be the state where the fix had to be in is a little short of the mark.

Regards,
Shodan

[Bricker]

@rjung

Like the Washington State GOP, he’ll suddenly acknowledge there’s a problem when his candidate loses a race.

Interesting thought.

Utterly wrong prediction for me, as my reaction - publicly, on these boards, to the Washington governor’s race was… “The GOP lost. They should quit whining and suck it up.”

See that? I’m consistent.

[annaplurabelle]

@Shodan

So I am afraid your notion of “everyone” knowing beyond question that Ohio was going to be the state where the fix had to be in is a little short of the mark.

Regards,
Shodan

Okay, it appears that semantical nitpicks are relevant here in GD.

IMO, it’s total bullshit being used as a red herring and a distraction, but as long as I am still a subscriber I will play along with your nonsense:

I will retract “everyone”, in order to exclude the apolitical, the willfully ignorant, and anyone irrelevant to the context that prompted my assertion/reply. Karl Rove and the Bush campaign considered Ohio to be key. This was the original basis of xtisme’s theory re the possibility of fraud being perpetrated.

Care to dispute that?

[XT]

Actually, here is what I said (since you dragged me back into this…I’m mostly just lurking on this board these days):

You would need foreknowledge that Ohio was going to be THE decisive swing state…otherwise you’d need to hedge your bets and go for other states too. That WOULD take millions of potentially altered votes. Your whole house of cards rests on retrospective looking at how the election went, then attempting to fit your theory into it. Looked at BEFORE the election, no one knew precisely which were going to be the swing states…and which were going to be easily won/lost by Bush/Kerry. Certainly Ohio was on the list…but so were many other states.

I stand by that. You’ve shown that some people thought Ohio MIGHT be important, even the key. Shodan has shown that other people had other thoughts on it…some of which didn’t include Ohio at all. It would still take foreknowledge to know that Ohio was going to be THE decisive swing state and put their eggs in that basket to ‘steal’ the election. Reguardless, I’ve still seen no actual proof that even Ohio was ‘stolen’…just a lot of dancing around about whether or not everyone ‘knew’ that Ohio was going to be THE one and only key to victory.

-XT

[annaplurabelle]

@xtisme

Actually, here is what I said (since you dragged me back into this…I’m mostly just lurking on this board these days):

I stand by that. You’ve shown that some people thought Ohio MIGHT be important, even the key. Shodan has shown that other people had other thoughts on it…some of which didn’t include Ohio at all. It would still take foreknowledge to know that Ohio was going to be THE decisive swing state and put their eggs in that basket to ‘steal’ the election. Reguardless, I’ve still seen no actual proof that even Ohio was ‘stolen’…just a lot of dancing around about whether or not everyone ‘knew’ that Ohio was going to be THE one and only key to victory.

-XT

Where did I say “THE one and only” key to victory? You’re only perpetuating nonsense by supporting Shodan’s posts.

Did you read Shodan’s cites? (I admit I didn’t, only because he has a history of posting disingenuous cites, apparently hoping no one bothers to read them)

But regardless, the only relevant “foreknowledge” would be that of those with the means, motive, and opportunity to perpeptrate fraud, ie, Karl Rove, and the Bush campaign.

I can’t force you to read the evidence presented so far, much less acknowledge it. Why do you feel the need to post in these threads when you consistently refuse to do so?

Then again, re this Watergate timeline:

November 7- Four days before the election a Gallup poll revealed that less than half of the American population were even aware the Watergate break-in had occurred.

Maybe you’ll get around to it someday…

[XT]

@annaplurabelle

Where did I say “THE one and only” key to victory? You’re only perpetuating nonsense by supporting Shodan’s posts.

Er…I’m not perpetuating anything. You are seriously trying to confuse this issue with all this. Read again what I wrote and what you objected too. You and others were saying that it would only take a few votes in a key state to swing the election. I was pointing out that unless you had foreknowledge of which would be THE key state, you’d have to target all of the states you THOUGHT would (or even might) be key…and that would take altering potentially millions of votes. Hundreds of thousands at the least. Its only if you could look back on things retrospectively that you’d KNOW that Ohio was the key, and target just THAT state just enough to steal the election without setting off real alarm bells.

Reguardless I’ve still seen no proof that even Ohio was stolen.

@annaplurabelle

Did you read Shodan’s cites? (I admit I didn’t, only because he has a history of posting disingenuous cites, apparently hoping no one bothers to read them)

I skimmed both of your cites. Perhaps you should go and look at his though before simply dismissing them. Reguardless of what anyone predicted, no one KNEW what the outcome would be before hand…not even Carl Rove.

@annaplurabelle

I can’t force you to read the evidence presented so far, much less acknowledge it. Why do you feel the need to post in these threads when you consistently refuse to do so?

But I’ve READ all the so called evidence anna. I’ve been in myriad of these threads, especially in the early days just after the election. I’ve yet to see anything solid. Why do YOU continue to post in these threads when the evidence is so scanty? On other subjects if presented with such scanty evidence (take the myriad WMD threads) you and most of the other objectors would be hooting with laughter if someone attempted to piece such non-sense together. If you have some new and startling evidence post it and I’ll take a look…so far you’ve posted nothing but some quotes that some folks thought Ohio would (or might) be the key.

@annaplurabelle

Then again, re this Watergate timeline:

I’ve made no comment on Watergate one way or the other, so I’m unsure why you are trying to drag me into this aspect. I don’t really see the parallel myself…they were separate incidents. In addition, since I was alive then, I can say that fairly early one could tell something fishy was up…the only unknown was how high up it would go. The crime was pretty well documented (something that has failed to be done with the stolen election claims) early on. There was an investigation started early on as well, though perhaps it was going on without the majority of US citizens being aware…again, something not happening here. It might have taken a year after the election before the majority of the people were knowledgable of this, but the investigations were on going during that time. Afaik, there are no serious official (or even unofficial) investigations currently underway concerning the election in 2004.

-XT

[annaplurabelle]

@xtisme

I was pointing out that unless you had foreknowledge of which would be THE key state, you’d have to target all of the states you THOUGHT would (or even might) be key…and that would take altering potentially millions of votes.

See, this is nonsense.

I’ve already provided ample cites to show that the Bush campaign considered Ohio key. You’ve provided nothing to refute them.

It wasn’t millions of votes that decided this election. Why would you keep on with that scenario in the face of the facts? It’s dishonest, just as Shodan’s argument about Ohio was and is dishonest. That’s not debating.

[Shodan]

@annaplurabelle

I will retract “everyone”, in order to exclude the apolitical, the willfully ignorant, and anyone irrelevant to the context that prompted my assertion/reply. Karl Rove and the Bush campaign considered Ohio to be key. This was the original basis of xtisme’s theory re the possibility of fraud being perpetrated.

Care to dispute that?

So you think NPR and CNN are willfully ignorant?

At any rate, your amended nonsense is also stupid and wrong. Cite..

Oh wait, that’s right - you don’t read cites.

Oh well, maybe you read posts:

@Karl Rove

Mr. Rove said of the remaining 13 battleground states, the Kerry campaign is “worried about” protecting the nine states that Vice President Al Gore won in 2000: Maine, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington…

He added that although Mr. Kerry would have to win Ohio in order to become president, Mr. Bush could find another way to electoral victory.
“They can never say that Ohio moves out of contention, because they can’t win unless they break into Ohio,” he said. “We’ve got New Mexico, Iowa and Wisconsin, where the polls are showing us ahead, and that equals Ohio.”

@annaplurabelle

It wasn’t millions of votes that decided this election. Why would you keep on with that scenario in the face of the facts?

So you are now alleging that the margin of victory for Bush was not around three and a half million votes?

My gosh, this is pathetic.

Oh, and by the way -

@annaplurabelle

Did you read Shodan’s cites? (I admit I didn’t, only because he has a history of posting disingenuous cites, apparently hoping no one bothers to read them).

You’re a liar.

[annaplurabelle]

@Shodan

So you think NPR and CNN are willfully ignorant?

Um, no - I was thinking of someone else.

@Shodan

At any rate, your amended nonsense is also stupid and wrong. Cite..

Oh wait, that’s right - you don’t read cites.

Oh well, maybe you read posts:

Not only dishonest, but now sloppy…

I wouldn’t need to read “your” cite, because I cited it earlier:

@annaplurabelle

The Wash. Times, in Sept. 2004: …Ohio, which is widely considered the most crucial state in the election.

Let’s see what else “your cite” says:

“I’m convinced that we are on the verge of seeing West Virginia and Ohio sort of move out of contention,” a relaxed and confident Mr. Rove said between bites of his Caesar salad.

Mr. Rove said of the remaining 13 battleground states, the Kerry campaign is “worried about” protecting the nine states that Vice President Al Gore won in 2000: Maine, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington.

That leaves Mr. Bush to protect four states he won in 2000: Ohio, Florida, New Hampshire and Nevada.

He said he feels “fantastic” about Ohio, which Mr. Bush carried by fewer than four percentage points in 2000.

Mr. Rove acknowledged that the Bush campaign “underperformed” in roughly half of Ohio four years ago, especially in the southwestern quadrant, where “we came up short in terms of what we needed in raw numbers and percentages.”

But he insisted that the campaign there is now “strong as an acre of garlic.”

**"Karl Rove had said Ohio would be the “Ground Zero” of the election** and, not for the first time, he was right."

"Whether you like it or not, Ohio is where it’s at in this election."

• Karl Rove, addressing the Ohio delegates at the 2004 RNC convention.

@Shodan

So you are now alleging that the margin of victory for Bush was not around three and a half million votes?

EC vote trumps popular vote (as if you didn’t know).

@Shodan

My gosh, this is pathetic.

I agree.

Refresh my memory: When’s the last time a Republican won without winning Ohio???

@Shodan

Oh, and by the way -
You’re a liar.

Thanks for the laugh.

[Shodan]

I thought you didn’t read cites.

Anyway, now that you did, and it says pretty specifically that Rove did not consider Ohio to be key since “We’ve got New Mexico, Iowa and Wisconsin, where the polls are showing us ahead, and that equals Ohio.”, and that he believed that West Virginia and Ohio were about to move out of contention - you do realize that your nonsense has been disproven twice over?

So, you originally said that “everyone” knew that Ohio was key. That was easily disproven, so you amended to say that everyone who was not willfully ignorant thought so. That was equally easily disproven. Then you claimed that Karl Rove said that Ohio was the key. Also wrong, obviously.

So what do you have left? Bluster? That’s all you started out with.

Not ready for the big boys yet.

Regards,
Shodan

[rjung]

The idea that Karl Rove would simply write off a state with 20 electoral votes – especially one that Bush won by 1% (over Gore and Nader) in 2000 – is laughably naive.

And splitting hairs over what Rove did or didn’t say in public is meaningless; as this Administration has shown repeatedly, what someone will say and what he will do are totally separate things.

[annaplurabelle]

@rjung

The idea that Karl Rove would simply write off a state with 20 electoral votes – especially one that Bush won by 1% (over Gore and Nader) in 2000 – is laughably naive.

And splitting hairs over what Rove did or didn’t say in public is meaningless; as this Administration has shown repeatedly, what someone will say and what he will do are totally separate things.

It could only be termed “naive” if you believed they didn’t know better.

But I agree that this particular line of debate is meaningless. IMO, it’s just a deliberate distraction from the main issue posited by the OP.

If someone can straight-face deny a basic political and historical fact like “Ohio is, was, and has always been a key state in a US national election - especially for the GOP candidate”, then what are the chances they will address or acknowledge any current evidence of election anomalies?

Apparently, we’ll just have to wait for reality to bite.

[XT]

@annaplurabelle

See, this is nonsense.

Oh, I see the nonsense, no doubt. Its just coming from a different source than you seem to think it is. Try a bit closer to home.

@annaplurabelle

I’ve already provided ample cites to show that the Bush campaign considered Ohio key. You’ve provided nothing to refute them.

Why should I refute them. You are either blind or you are being willfully ignorant in this thread…or trying to provoke me. I never claimed Ohio wasn’t A key. I said it wasn’t THE one and ONLY key…that there were other states that were thought would be as important before the election. Thats what you just don’t seem to be able to get through your head. I have no idea why…you really aren’t normally this dense.

@annaplurabelle

If someone can straight-face deny a basic political and historical fact like “Ohio is, was, and has always been a key state in a US national election - especially for the GOP candidate”, then what are the chances they will address or acknowledge any current evidence of election anomalies?

One last time…no one in this thread is denying that Ohio wasn’t a key state. Whats being refuted is that it was THE key state where the Republicans would put all their eggs before the election. YOU asserted that ‘everyone’ knew Ohio was THE key state…thus you wouldn’t need millions of votes to ‘steal’ the election, only tens of thousands (BTW, you still haven’t backed up your over all assertion that Ohio WAS stolen yet…just a heads up). You have failed to back up even this claim though as Shodans cites show (did you ever read them btw?). No one knew exactly which states would be key…there was a laundry list of states that various ‘experts’ THOUGHT MIGHT be key, and Ohio was only ONE of them. Thus, were a party going to try and ‘steal’ an election it they would target ALL the states they thought were ‘key’.

Ok, lets see more bluster and BS anna. Lets see you wave your hands and construct another strawman position you can knock down. Or…lets see some EVIDENCE that the election WAS stolen. Thats really the core issue here which you have danced around the entire thread. Whether the pope felt that Ohio was going to be THE key, and he heard it from GOD ALMIGHTY is irrelevant if you can’t even prove that Ohio was stolen. So, why don’t you drop this tangent and get cracking on proving your core assertion…that the 2004 election was stolen. After all, that WAS the OP after all…not whether or not Rove (or Mickey Mouse) thought Ohio was the holy grail of the election…

-XT

[BobLibDem]

The issue of whether 100% of all pols and pundits agreed that Ohio was the key state in the election is irrelevant. It WAS 100% certain that a Bush victory with a stolen Ohio was more likely than a Bush victory without one.
I’d like an innocent explanation for the following

First, the county-by-county and precinct-by-precinct discrepancies. In Butler County, for example, a Democrat running for the State Supreme Court chief justice received 61,559 votes. The Kerry-Edwards ticket drew about 5,000 fewer votes, at 56,243. This contrasts rather markedly with the behavior of the Republican electorate in that county, who cast about 40,000 fewer votes for their judicial nominee than they did for Bush and Cheney. (The latter pattern, with vote totals tapering down from the top of the ticket, is by far the more general—and probable—one nationwide and statewide.)

Or this from the same cite:

In Montgomery County, two precincts recorded a combined undervote of almost 6,000. This is to say that that many people waited to vote but, when their turn came, had no opinion on who should be the president, voting only for lesser offices. In these two precincts alone, that number represents an undervote of 25 percent, in a county where undervoting averages out at just 2 percent. Democratic precincts had 75 percent more under- votes than Republican ones

We’re being asked to believe that the shortage of voting machines in Democratic precincts and longer lines is just happenstance. We’re being asked to believe that precincts where undervotes of 2% are typical had 25% of the voters stand in line for hours and hours only to express no opinion on the presidential race. Virtually every irregularity in the 2004 election just happened to favor Bush. Sorry, but I just cannot make myself believe that. And I don’t believe for a minute that the election thieves cared whether it was 100% certain that Ohio was the key.

[XT]

Why is there no official investigation happening then BobLibDem? Why aren’t the Democrats in the Congress and Senate agitating for one? I’m curious why you think the Dems aren’t doing anything if there are so many indications.

-XT

[tagos]

@xtisme

Why is there no official investigation happening then BobLibDem? Why aren’t the Democrats in the Congress and Senate agitating for one? I’m curious why you think the Dems aren’t doing anything if there are so many indications.

-XT

Because they’re gutless? Because they fear the damage to faith in the electoral system would be worse than keeping quiet? Because they just can’t bring themselves to believe the evidence?

[BobLibDem]

@xtisme

Why is there no official investigation happening then BobLibDem? Why aren’t the Democrats in the Congress and Senate agitating for one? I’m curious why you think the Dems aren’t doing anything if there are so many indications.-XT

Darn good question. Not being in Congress, I assume these are possible factors:
1- Lack of courage
2- Unwillingness to be perceived as a “sore loser”
3- Fear of possible harm to democratic process if election fraud is proven
4- Loss of pork for district
5- Realization that the Republican majority is about as objective as the OJ Simpson jury and no remedy is forthcoming.

I salute Conyers for bringing it as far as he has. Doubtless he has been advised by Democratic leadership that in the long term, it isn’t in the best interest of the party to pursue it further.