You really want an “explanation” for the fact that people sometimes split their vote between the parties? And that depending on the local strength of national campaigns the number of votes split varies widely? I’m thinking you and Mr. Hitchens really need to take a Political Science 101 class.
This is the part I don’t understand.
In what way would it be bad for Democrats to uncover massive, wide-spread election fraud by Republicans? This is like advising Congressional Democrats in 1973 to disregard Watergate, because it wouldn’t be in the “best interests of the party”. This makes no sense.
The only scenario under which Democratic leaders would advise people not to make a big stink about election fraud would be if there were no real evidence of it. Then I could see how trying to capitalize on it would make Dems look like sore losers.
But simply saying they should sit on real evidence and not do anything about it? Not likely.
Regards,
Shodan
Come on. You’re a Montgomery County voter. You stand in line for hours to cast your vote. You get to the booth and you, like 25% of your precinct, fail to cast a vote for president? What innocent reason would you give for 25% of a precinct failing to cast a vote for president? And the only precincts with significant undervotes for president just happen to be in Democratic strongholds? Isn’t that just a tiny bit unlikely?
A perfectly logical question. To bring this to court requires smoking guns. The cheaters are smart enough not to leave any. To bring a case without hard evidence runs the risk of looking like a political witchhunt (like Whitewater). The way to cheat an election is to do a multitude of little things which might look like accidents. Like not having enough voting machines in Democratic areas. Like having voters in two precincts with punchcards that are coded differently put their ballots in the same box. Like making silly requirements for paper weights for voter registration. Like fiddling with optical scanners to make a light mark for Mr. Bush count but require a much darker mark for Mr. Kerry to count. Lots of things can be done to steal an election without leaving hard evidence. You can demonstrate statistically the high improbability of the Ohio results but to convict someone is going to require more evidence than is now available.
I was answering your first scenario, as you know.
As for undercounting, I don’t know about that. It seems odd, like the old mechanical voting machines weren’t doing their thing. Perhaps they should consider upgrading to a nice optical-scan or touch-screen system, which have higher reliability. 
That it happened much more often in Democratic districts than in Republican ones tells me that it’s probably a competence or money problem rather than one of shenanigans – why would Democratic elected and appointed officials in those districts take part in some sort of scheme which benefits a Republican candidate?
Because we’ve got a Republican-controlled Congress that thinks investigating steroid use in baseball is much more important than this? Heck, they’re still trying to work up the gusto to resolve the whole Valerie Plame fiasco, not to mention Jeff Gannon…
I’ll take “Emasculated cowards” for $500, Alex.
So…let me get this right. What I’m hearing is that though there is compelling evidence that the election (I’ll drop for now just what that is) was stolen in 2004 and the Democrats in the Congress and the Senate, knowing this for a fact, are sitting on their hands/heels and taking it in the shorts because they are cowards/afraid…even though they must realize that producing compelling evidence and denouncing the elections will not only win them the presidency but probably completely discredit the Republicans to the point where the nation could very well swing completely the other way, with the Democrats controlling not only the Presidency but the Senate and Congress as well. Hell, such a scandal might send the Republicans to the same dust bin as the Whigs or the Federalists. And they are doing this because they are scared. Does that essentially sum up your positions BobLibDem and friends?
If so, then let me ask another quesition. Lets say I am convinced now that indeed the Republicans stole the election. Obviously the majority of my fellow citizens are completely unaware of it. Just as obviously the Democrats are doing absolutely nothing about it. First question: How do you expect anything to ever get done if the Democrats are either too stupid or too cowardly to take this seeming (to you) golden opportunity to destroy the Republicans? Next question: How will the 2008 presidential elections be different? If the Republicans could get away with the perfect crime here without the Dems lifting a finger, whats to stop them next time? For that matter, as a tangential question, why will the Democrats run at all if they are afraid? How will this pervasive fear affect the party in the future? What point HAVING an opposition party if they are this afraid? Last question: Should the Democrats just fold their hand and pack it in letting one of the third parties rise up as number 2? Again, what point having an opposition party if they are so afraid they won’t lift a finger if an election is stolen from them?
-XT
Do you remember 2000? There was a recount, ordered by law. It was an automatic kinda thing, not caused by one side or another. However, the republicans kept claiming that the dems where asking for recount after recount, until the dems got their way. This had no basis on reality, however, when odd notes began to pop-up in the course of the recount, they repubs kept repeating their selves, and it served them well.
That’s an interesting take on it. I assume you mean Florida here.
I don’t know if things went exactly as you describe…
Regards,
Shodan
PS - I found something that I didn’t remember from 2000.
Imagine that. 
Do some damn research. Your “timeline” starts about a month after mine.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/electiontime.htm
Actually, if you had read all the way down the page of my cite, you would have noticed that it starts on the same day as your quote.
It also mentions some things that seem to mitigate against your notion that it was the Republicans who were the only source of litigation contesting the counts:
So, again, things did not run exactly as you describe.
Regards,
Shodan
Nowhere in
did I say there was no request for the intervention of the court, just that it started automatically.
Now, about your “timeline”, it makes the claim that
That is no different from the claim I made. It goes on to use the very unspecific words: “Later, this case fades from the headlines as other court challenges come to the fore.” I simply am unable to see what kind of point you are making. In both timelines, I see only things to support my claim that the repugs have used every opportunity to paint those who ask for recounts, no matter what the circumstances, as whiners. That is childish behavior, to pose an honest question as a pointless complaint, but it is just what the repugs did. That is exactly why the dems didn’t chalennge the election in 200 as much as they should have.
Actually what you claimed was that the Republicans’ accusation that Dems were requesting recounts “had no basis in reality”, which, as I mentioned, is not quite the case.
What happened was, the closeness of the election triggered an automatic recount via scanning machines. The Gore campaign wanted manual recounts, using different standards of validity than machines do, in the counties where he thought he would come out ahead. The Bush campaign then sued to stop this manual recount.
Oh, the hell with retyping everything. Just read the damn cite all the way thru.
Regards,
Shodan
To answer xtisme’s questions:
Partially. The public is not equipped to understand statistical impossibilities such as the Ohio vote. What is needed is a smoking gun. Someone admitting that their optical scanners were rigged to be much more tolerant of light marks for Bush votes than for Kerry votes. Or election officials testifying that they were ordered to keep the number of voting machines in Democratic districts too low. Or an election official testifying that he altered vote tabulations from electronic voting. Statistics can show the mathematical near-impossibility of the Ohio results being honest but without something akin to fingerprints it isn’t going anywhere. In truth the Republicans have pulled off a nearly perfect crime.
The Democratic leadership has a choice- they can press the case that the election was stolen, or they can save their political capital for the 2006 and 2008 elections. One possibility is that they are lying back and collecting evidence for those smoking guns. Another, more likely, is that they know that without physical evidence or testimony, the public is going to regard any accusation of election fraud as sour grapes from sore losers.
I wouldn’t call it a golden opportunity- yet. We need physical evidence and/or testimony. And we may not need to play this card at all- between Delay’s misdeeds and the Iraq fiasco, Bush’s attempt to destroy Social Security, and his irresponsible fiscal policy, the Republicans are proving their ineptitude at being the majority party.
The 2008 election will be 7 years removed from the hysteria following 9/11 and 5 years removed from the fall of Iraq. People will be looking a lot more rationally at the issues and not feel obliged out of misplaced patriotism to vote for the Republicans. Not to mention, the GOP candidates almost make Dick Cheney look charismatic.
Somebody has to run on the platform of fairness and justice. It certainly isn’t the Republicans.
This argument is PRECISELY why I heard, over, and over again, why there was no way Bush could win a second term. Nor was it just Bush - the GOP picked up seats in Congress.
Is there any chance at all that you are out of touch with what mainstream America feels about these issues?
Then I am pretty safe in assuming you will not be support Senator Clinton.
The GOP took advantage of an ill-timed movement for gays to push for marriage rights. Middle America was not ready for that and the GOP, with lips super-glued to the buttocks of the religious right, was all too happy to milk this issue for all it was worth. When the pollsters on election night told us that many voters were voting for “moral values” it was code words for the anti-gay backlash.
Don’t forget that “the most liberal Senator” nearly carried the day and would have, had the election been honest. The Republican majority in both houses remains thin.
Nope, I’m not at all out of touch with mainstream America.
She’s a good woman and I support much of what she stands for on social issues, though she’s too hawkish for my tastes. She will not be nominated due to her polarizing effect on the electorate.
And yet you predicted “Kerry by a landslide”, IIRC, and based in large part on exactly the same factors you claim will sweep the Dems to victory next time.
Regards,
Shodan
And my mother predicts a hard winter every year and sometimes she’s right. I can’t be wrong forever! Like Linus and the Great Pumpkin, my faith is unshakable.
And, for all we know, he was right.
If the method by which you pick the Democrats for a win is akin to Linus’ approach as regards the Great Pumpkin, then it’s well-nigh impossible to take you seriously. Regardless of the facts, you’ll predict the Democrats will win. That’s fine… but hardly a model of cogent analysis.