So, you think that the American public was generally aware of the negotiations between Reagan and Iran and held that against Carter? And this led to a 10% difference in the popular vote and was the reason that Carter only received 49 electoral votes? As I remember it, for an incumbent, Carter had a difficult time even getting own his party’s nomination.
Well, sure! America was totally outraged that Carter would sell weapons to our enemies, defy Congress’ direct instructions, and use the money to support a bunch of murderous thugs in Nicaragua! Shit, who could blame them!
Since there was never any chance of peace in Viet Nam, and since it was Thieu who refused to participate in any negotiations (cite), this isn’t true.
Since the earlier allegations are untrue, this isn’t true either.
If this is the October Surprise nonsense, again, nothing to do with the truth.
See above.
See above.
The ballot design was approved by both parties well before the election, and making a decision you don’t like does not constitute fraud.
Same problem.
2012 was the election after Lois Lerner’s abuse of the IRS to try to silence Tea Party organization. 2016 was the year that Hillary’s paranoid secrecy led her to violate State Department policy and lie about it.
Regards,
Shodan
Me thinks you miss the point much. No, of course they weren’t aware of it. The point is that these negotiations were to make sure that the hostages were not released before the election, i.e., that there would be no favorable “October Surprise” for Carter.
BobLibDem likes to trot out that list but you definitely focused on one of the dodgier bits. So if Carter had managed to get the hostages released in October then that would have been a “fair” election, releasing them after the election makes it a fraud. Then the next election is a fraud too.
Quite right. He’s been spouting that same nonsense for years. In his fantasy world, only Democrats are legitimate.
I can think of two reasons why the exit polls could have been so wrong.
One - it’s possible that the demographics of voters in those states shifted for some unexplained reason.
Two - what I call “Tom Bradley Syndrome.” In 1982, some exit polls showed that Tom Bradley was going to be elected governor of California, but he lost a close race. Somebody on CNN made a comment along the lines of, a significant number of Trump voters did not want to admit that they voted for him.
Yeah, sure, and vegans and atheists never talk about it.
I think the whole Comey thing might have done it, not because it disheartened Hillary voters, but because it encouraged Trump voters. The ones who thought he didn’t stand a chance and wouldn’t go the the trouble just to make a symbolic gesture.
What the Pubbies should do is call our bluff! Go whole hog, clean up the voting place problems, so that nobody has to wait hours to vote. Stop trying to prevent people from registering, and make it all totally transparent, so that everybody knows its all on the up and up! Then, when they win, nobody has anything to bitch about!
Boy, that would sure fuck us over good! Gosh, I sure hope they don’t do that, it would be terrible!
By this butterfly-effect logic, Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 was invalid, since it happened as the indirect result of an unpopular GHW Bush, who himself wasn’t president except because of Reagan’s “illegitimate win in 1980,” and then, by consequence, Barack Obama’s election in 2008 was invalid, since he was elected in large part due to the unpopularity of GW Bush, who himself wouldn’t have been president, if it weren’t for family name recognition because of his father being president, who himself wouldn’t have been president except because of Reagan’s 1980 illegitimate win.
…See where this takes us?
You mean, like, here?
The whacky thing is that the argument is because Carter was denied an October surprise to boost him over Reagan that invalidates the election.
Karma is a nasty bitch, ain’t it?
I guess if you honestly believe that Sanders had the primary stolen from him and Clinton actually had the election rigged against her, yeah that’s karma. But since both those things are likely bullshit it’s not really karma. It’s just some sore loser stuff.
voter suppression by the GOP is real and changes elections
they do it, we all pay
To get to this elusive karmic retribution, you also have to explain why the DNC is somehow required to back a candidate who isn’t even a democrat. Sanders tried to hijack a party that didn’t even share the same platform.
Not exactly, since the whole Comey BS announcement/take back the weekend before the election date violates election laws (less than 60 days—he’ll, less than 7 days) and because it looks fairly obviously orchestrated to be a red herring. Talk about manipulation.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You mean, like the way Trump stole the party away from the GOP? He is certainly no Republican.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well the explanation is easy. It’s part of the DNC charter that the officials remain neutral. There’s no rules about how long you have to be a party member. But I’d rather not relitigate that whole thing.
^ QFT
(That said, given exit polls, this result does make me wonder. )
I’m a sore winner.