Yeah, all the Dems have to do is exactly the same thing they did last time, but make sure there is a paper trail. Nothing is more important than that.
Then you support Boxer and Clinton’s “Count Every Vote Act”? Or at least the paper-trail element of it?
Let me put it this way. I’m more concerned about an accurate result than I am about winning. I mean that. I’d rather lose fairly than win by cheating. The integrity of a democracy is only as good as the integrity of its voting results.
Use as much paper as you want. Just stop whining about losing.
Please don’t miss my own post #24 in that thread which puts the issue in perspective.
It is actually a documented fact that Laura Bush once killed a guy after running a stop sign, Simply stating the fact that she once killed a guy is not the same as an accusation of murder. It’s not in the same ballpark as the completely fabricated Vince Foster “murder” fable that was spun about Hillary.
That would be easier to do if we knew the results were fair (and if they matched the exit polls).
Oh, come now, Doggyknees, theres all kinds of perfectly sound reasons why the exit polls didn’t match the results. I mention one myself, just above. Surely if you had voted for Bush, you wouldn’t have admitted it, now would you?
There are dozens of other perfectly reasonable explanations. I’m sure friend John has several right at his fingertips!
Over to you, John.
The exit poll crap was debunked the day after the election, for anyone paying attention. I gave links earlier in this thread. Besides, there is no requirement to “match” exit polls. The real election takes place inside the polling stations.
Kerry had every opportunity to challenge the election results if he wanted to. I’m 100% certain he would’ve done that if he thought there was any merit in it.
Since this is seemingly a hijack that won’t die, here is a fairly balanced look at the whole exit poll controversy on Wiki (it talks to both the MIT position paper and Professor Steven F. Freeman’s, er, study). Its fairly balanced, giving (for the most part) both sides of the exit poll debate some air time (I think it leans more toward one side than the other, but its a Wiki article after all). It certainly give much more reasonable explainations than 'luci’s ridiculous parady as to the discrepency in the exit polls.
Enjoy. 
-XT
The wiki article is one of the cites I gave earlier. But it’s more interesting to look at the CBS cite that I gave from the day after the election.
I’m sorry John…I didn’t realize you had posed that. I usually use the MIT study when this crops up, or the CBS one (that appearently you already posted). My apologies.
-XT
Deftly sidestepped, guys. Kudos. Kind of like that “global warming” thingee, huh? Where its all very “controversial”. And isn’t just the teensiest bit odd that these discrepencies favor one candidate over another consistently?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/19/exit.polls/index.html
Indeed. Quite. My parodic suggestion is “ridiculous”, of course, but have you another?
But take heart! Why, all we need do is direct the attention of the Justice Dept., that bastion of non-partisan rectitude…well, maybe not so much.
Guess what! No, go ahead, guess! Turns out they were right. And the political appointees who overruled them were…yes, that’s right! Wrong! Now, what kind of person would dare to suggest that political advantage was the motivating factor here. Me. For one.
And, of course, this…
For “senior officials” read “Bush admin appointees”.
For dessert:
Well, heck, why are we “whining”? After all, if we want chickens, we can buy them from the fox!
You’re doing a heck of job, Bertie!
There could be merit in it and the task could still be impossible. The machines didn’t keep traceable records. The suppressed voters didn’t get to vote at all. What could Kerry have done about that?
Sheesh.
Well, gee, Elvish, he can still whine like a loser, can’t he?
(Take heart, companero. Sooner or later, we will get our chance to gleefully accuse our political opponents of “whining”. Difference being, a clear conscience. For is it not written that “whatsoever shall go around, verily, therefore shall it come around”.
Amen.
Or take his case to the Justice Dept., a wholly owned subsidiary of BushCo.
Nope. There isn’t any real controversy about global warming. You need to drop the ananolgies-- you’re not good at picking ones that are relavent.
Yeah, Bush won Georgia by a nose. Why if there wasn’t rampant cheating in the state, it would be in the blue column!
Meh. We just had a SCOTUS ruling on that issue, and they found problems wtih exaclty 1 district. And that had nothing to do with the presidential election anyway.
And yet, we find Tighty Righty partisans claiming that such controversy does exist. My analogy is simply that if the party in power want academic support, they usually have no difficulty in finding it, however specious.
Maybe. I want to be sure. I insist on being sure. Why don’t you?
Glad you mentioned that! As I understand it, that ruling on that district was based exactly on the grounds put forth by the DofJ lawyers. And what difference does it make what election we’re talking about, specificly?
I have offered a case that the Republicans seek to disenfranchise voters who’s votes will tend against them. I have offered two concrete examples, one verified by the Supreme Court.
And you offer…ah, yes! “Whining”.
I am sure.
No, you understand incorrectly. How you draw the distrcits doesn’t affect who votes or who doesn’t votes, it affects whose votes get thrown together with other votes. Congressional districts don’t affect presidential elections.
No you haven’t. We’re talking about whether Kerry lost in 2004, and none of the things you mention speak to that. I’ll tell you what. Let’s let the Congressional Democrats vote on whether the election was valid or not.
OK, so they know when they’re whupped, don’t mean it was a fair fight.
And whether the chicanery invoves presidential elections, redistricting, or the County Commission for Hogs, the principle is same, a principle we both hold dear. The process of voting and the fair access to that process should be a matter of the very first priority, it is the essence of who we are as a nation.
Look into your heart of hearts, look me square in the eye and tell me that you don’t believe there were any taint of partisan considerations in the cited DoJ actions. Emphasizing in particular that they were decisions wherein political appointees (Bushiviks) overruled career lawyers?
And perhaps why you imagine that so many civil rights lawyers are, rather suddenly, superflous? Need more dots?
If you want to debate whether the Republican party and/or Bush’s administration broke some rules in the last election, you won’t be debating against me. But that’s not what I’m talking about here. I’m talking about whether the election in 2004 was “stolen” or not. I don’t see it, and neither did the Democrats in Congress. There’s nothing stopping them from voting “nay”, and if the did think the eleciton was stolen and still voted “yea”, then what the fuck good are they?
If the majority of the Dems in the Senate say they think the election was stolen, I’ll man the barracades with you. In fact, I’ll take the first shift!