Will there be riots?

At this point, barring some kind of eleventh-hour surprise (“Bin Laden Found in Obama Guest House; Video Evidence of Long-Term Menage A Trois with Obamas” . . . “Palin Voluntarily Withdraws her Nomination; McCain Selects Schwarzenegger as Replacement” li), I think that if Obama loses on Tuesday there will only be one reason: the “Bradley Effect.”[/li]
It strikes me that this will be nearly as outrageous an injustice and [understatement]disappointment[/understatement] as the assassination of Martin Luther King, certainly it would overshadow the perceived injustice of the Rodney King verdict. Both of course led to riots.

Frankly, I’m in those shoes? I’d certainly need some effort to talk myself out of it.

What do we think the likelihood of riots will be if the election gets Bradleyed?

Here’s an earlier thread asking the same question: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=490087

Merely Bradleyed? That’s a fair loss; the people have spoken in the privacy of their election booth, as is their right. It would take more than that for me.

Hmm. Maybe this makes me a racist, but I was thinking primarily about “urban” rioting, if you know what I mean. Sorry, I thought my examples made that clear.

I doubt there would be any significant violence. There is some concern among the black community that there could be violence in the other circumstance though. whether its any more well founded I don’t really know.

A McCain win would almost certainly have to be the result of vote-qualification disputes. If sometime next June the US SC ruled on several disputed ties in McCain’s favor, then things could turn ugly.

Why aren’t people wondering about all those disappointed McCain/Palin people? You know, the ones who actually think we’d be electing a terroristic, socialistic, Islamic Anti-Christ who’s going to eat Jewish babies? The ones who scream KILL HIM! at rallies and worry about the end of civilization? I dunno about those “urban” Obama people, but I know these people have guns and aren’t afraid to use them. Why aren’t we afraid of them?

I’m sincerely asking.

Those people don’t have any rational reasons to riot, so any such violence will be less widespread; the usual wacko wingnuts. You never need an Obama victory for wacko wingnuts (I’m looking at you, Timothy McVey).

Does anyone? What does a riot accomplish but to damage the neighborhood the rioters live in?

Agreed. However, regarding the word “rational,” I’d far sooner accept that in the case of the reaction to King’s assassination than I would to such a reaction to an Obama victory. The fears mongered by the Palinistas are explicitly irrational; the sense of injustice that African Americans have in such instances of King’s assassination or an Obama defeat due solely to a racism is perfectly rational.

Again, agreed, in any situation, rioting is an [understatement]overreaction[/understatement], but if you had to decide whether I was using the word “rational” to A) condone riots, or B) attempt to make a simple distinction, I’d hope you give me the benefit of the doubt.

Perhaps the, “I’d certainly need some effort to talk myself out of it,” made it less clear.

Only if you skipped over the “I’m in those shoes?” bit.

Um, if I really thought Obama was a terroristic, socialistic, Jew-baby-eating Anti-Christ, I would riot if he became elected. And in my mind, I’d be perfectly rational and reasonable for doing so.

Perhaps the members of the Republican “base” that proclaim to believe in all that shit are just playing the role of the ignorant slack-jowl yokel. But if they believe a fraction of their rhetoric, then why wouldn’t we expect violence?

It just seems unfair that the “urbanites” are something to be feared, but not the gun-wieldin’, war-lovin’, Rush-Limbaugh-listenin’ suburban/rural folks. As someone who is surrounded by a bunch of the latter, I know I’m not going to be parading in the streets on Tuesday night with my homemade OBAMA IS THE VICTOR!! sign.

I love it when you make my argument for me.

I hear your point – but one reason there are more urban than rural riots is because there are more people, more tightly packed together, in urban areas. It’s hard to get the critical mass (sic) together for a riot out in the boonies.

That’s one of the reasons though. Wealthier people in the suburbs have more to lose in a riot, so are less likely to do so. People don’t riot unless they feel desperate and pushed up against a wall. Poverty and urban living work nicely for causing that feeling.

When you look at non-urban populations, the tendency is usually to move further away and isolate even more. The density of city living is a pretty critical factor in rioting.

In my mind, that would leave me with concluding either

  1. You must be scared shitless looking forward to Nov 5

  2. You know nobody believes Obama eats Jew babies

Were there riots when Bradley lost?

But beatdowns of exuberant Obama supporters are still a possibility. Wonder if we’ll see any of that?

We’ve got some kind of all day project management training on Wednesday. I’ll let you know.

(My manager’s manager originally scheduled it for Tuesday. Believe it or not.)