If it’s a very close election, with one swing state the difference between victory and defeat, then it’s inevitable that there will be allegations of fraud (from either side).
Do you sincerely believe that there is no evidence of impropriety in the 2004 election in Ohio, or do you just mean that there is not conclusive evidence of such?
Emphasis added for clarity.
No credible evidence of impropriety sufficient to swing the state to the other side.
So then Democrats blame shadowy corporations and Republicans blame illegal immigrants. Sounds about right.
No we can’t, because Democrats and Republicans aren’t the same. Despite the constant attempts by right wing apologists to pretend that they are.
We were stuck with him and had to settle, like the Dems had to deal with John Kerry.
Oh well, perhaps in 4 years someone better will come along.
I would bet that in private meetings with their really-big donors, they will discuss how the Democrats succeeded in their strategy of class warfare.
(They will, of course, check for recording devices at the door.)
Muslim conspiracy led by Obama with the help of All Quaeda.
Why not? While their party platforms are different, they use very similar talking points on things like when their party’s candidate loses.
Hey guys, don’t forget blaming “activist judges” who overturned voter ID laws!!!
They’ll blame John Roberts. Rehnquist never let the outcome of an election get in the way of deciding who was President.
So if an independent wins, the Dems and Repubs can blame illegal immigrants who started shadowy corporations.
I think smart Republicans knew there was no viable candidate this time around so it was therefore time for Romney to blow his wad and get off the scene. IOW, it’s more valuable to have Romney permanently out of the race than it is to win it this time around. By 2016 they might be able to find a charismatic Republican who will be going up against an unknown Democrat. But for this cycle they get a chance to just throw everything at the wall and see what sticks, establishing a solid platform to run on in 2016.
I think any rational analysis would be that it was election against an incumbent President, always an uphill battle, and the most ‘electable’ candidate from the opposing field was weak and came up short. Romney against Obama would then follow the pattern of Kerry in 2004, Dole in '96, Mondale in '84, McGovern '72, etc. I don’t know what the GOP will tell themselves given a loss in November, but that’s what the analysts will tell each other and us.
It would be much more interesting to hear how the Dems might explain away an Obama loss…from this crowd especially.
Personally, if Romney loses I will blame it on him saying things that never should have been said outside the confines of his immediate family, like that 47% remark. I don’t care if he believes his statement, it’s just a devastatingly stupid thing to have risked saying in front of others and given Dems such fine ammunition. That was an even dumber move than the one that sank Howard Dean’s chances. I guess this is a vote for an incompetent campaign?
Let’s not forget those two Black Panthers with the nightstick in Philly. They intimidated millions of voters nationwide in '08; they can do it again in '12, maybe even without showing up.
That’s easy, Romney is such a colossal liar that he fooled a bunch of people.
If Romney does win, I’m logging on here with some popcorn to watch heads explode. 