HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Romney would have won if ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 10:39 AM

Romney would have won if it had all come down to Ohio - Harvey Wasserman

November 8, 2012

http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/7/2012/1953

The simple truth of Barack Obama's victory is that if it had just come down to Ohio, Mitt Romney might have won.

The gears of the election theft machine were well-oiled and running at top speed...until an "October Surprise" named Hurricane Sandy intervened.

Those now rejoicing over the Obama triumph should know that there is absolutely no excuse for leaving this sinister apparatus of electronic election theft in place. Election reform should be at the top of the progressive movement's list, led by the non-negotiable demands for universal hand-counted paper ballots and universal automatic voter registration. As Obama said in his victory speech in reference to the long lines in Florida: "We need to do something about that."

This year, as in 2004, the Rovian blueprint was simple if not clean: keep the election close enough that Ohio and Florida would be the deciders…and then do the deciding.

Part One was the massive Jim/Juan Crow campaign aimed at disenfranchising millions of primarily black and Hispanic voters throughout the US, but especially in swing states Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania.

With photo ID and other restrictive laws, along with yet another 2004-style tsunami of misinformation, intimidation and artificially induced mass confusion, the GOP brought on truncated voting hours that caused long lines intended to keep suspected Democrats as far from casting countable ballots as possible.

Part Two was to embed a thoroughly corrupted electronic voting system that could flip Ohio to Romney with a few simple dead-of-night keystrokes. The Rovian narrative that all would turn on Ohio spread predictably through the corporate media. MORE AT LINK



66 replies, 4581 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 66 replies Author Time Post
Reply Romney would have won if it had all come down to Ohio - Harvey Wasserman (Original post)
flamingdem Nov 2012 OP
Rider3 Nov 2012 #1
Sheepshank Nov 2012 #2
Blue4Texas Nov 2012 #3
WeekendWarrior Nov 2012 #37
ProudProgressiveNow Nov 2012 #48
Squinch Nov 2012 #57
Sheepshank Nov 2012 #64
WeekendWarrior Nov 2012 #66
Coyotl Nov 2012 #34
Faryn Balyncd Nov 2012 #36
ejbr Nov 2012 #59
Jim Lane Nov 2012 #42
brush Nov 2012 #60
John1956PA Nov 2012 #4
flamingdem Nov 2012 #6
John1956PA Nov 2012 #14
flamingdem Nov 2012 #29
Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #56
brewens Nov 2012 #58
RomneyLies Nov 2012 #5
flamingdem Nov 2012 #7
RomneyLies Nov 2012 #9
stopbush Nov 2012 #10
RomneyLies Nov 2012 #12
stopbush Nov 2012 #15
RomneyLies Nov 2012 #17
HangOnKids Nov 2012 #18
Mc Mike Nov 2012 #38
HangOnKids Nov 2012 #43
Mc Mike Nov 2012 #47
RobertEarl Nov 2012 #13
PowerToThePeople Nov 2012 #23
flamingdem Nov 2012 #27
Doremus Nov 2012 #44
moriah Nov 2012 #31
PowerToThePeople Nov 2012 #33
Doremus Nov 2012 #45
Doremus Nov 2012 #46
moriah Nov 2012 #50
Doremus Nov 2012 #61
moriah Nov 2012 #63
flamingdem Nov 2012 #30
cherish44 Nov 2012 #8
amborin Nov 2012 #11
sammytko Nov 2012 #16
Johonny Nov 2012 #19
ProfessorGAC Nov 2012 #22
cthulu2016 Nov 2012 #20
flamingdem Nov 2012 #24
TheKentuckian Nov 2012 #62
flamingdem Nov 2012 #21
Tommy_Carcetti Nov 2012 #25
bigwillq Nov 2012 #26
flamingdem Nov 2012 #28
bleever Nov 2012 #32
Retrograde Nov 2012 #35
Mc Mike Nov 2012 #39
flamingdem Nov 2012 #41
jsmirman Nov 2012 #40
Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #49
Scootaloo Nov 2012 #51
tjwash Nov 2012 #52
phleshdef Nov 2012 #53
Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #54
TBF Nov 2012 #55
Howler Nov 2012 #65

Response to flamingdem (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:05 AM

1. Bull!

No matter how he wants to spin it, he's wrong. Let's take the Electoral Votes received (even BEFORE Obama was declared the winner in Florida). We had Obama at 303 Electoral Votes, and Mitt had 206. Now, Ohio got 18 Electoral Votes for this particular election. I'm no math genius, but if we take Obama's 303 total, minus the 18 Electoral Votes from Ohio, we'd still be looking at 285 Electoral Votes for Obama. He only needed 270 to secure the election. He won with or without Ohio. It was just nice that he got that state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rider3 (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:07 AM

2. Some are not yet ready to re-think their stand.

Their misguided sense of honor requires that they double down on the mental thinking they had been using...regardless of it actual outcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #2)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:15 AM

3. Rather than be wrong :)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #2)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:15 PM

37. The expression "double down"

needs to be banned from the English language. Now that the election is over, can we please find another phrase. PLEASE?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WeekendWarrior (Reply #37)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:24 PM

48. +1000 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WeekendWarrior (Reply #37)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 01:15 PM

57. That and "meme." When did the word "theme" get replaced with "meme?" And why?

"Meme" sounds like the name of a virus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WeekendWarrior (Reply #37)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 01:27 PM

64. Sure...what do you have in mind?

I need a word(s) that covers the idea that not only does a person restate a losing opinion, but at the same time they convey the idea that they are so-o-o-o convinced of that opinion, they think they can convince others that the opinion has merit and value.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #64)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 07:09 PM

66. Well, "double down" means

to increase a risk or double a wager, and I'm not sure the expression fulfills what you're asking of it. What is the person betting or risking?

That, however, is beside the point. Pundits wore the phrase out about the second day they started using it (somewhere in the middle of this presidential campaign) and when people say it they sound like parrots. The more it's used, the less effective it becomes.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rider3 (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 01:35 PM

34. Utter Nonsense

Bull is not adequate. This guy has a vested interest in promulgating false information, because he is still in a 2004 lawsuit in Ohio, suing the wrong people for the 2004 theft. It makes for a good cover-up though, to keep the false memes alive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rider3 (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:07 PM

36. Perhaps re-reading the post might help...


Wasserman's thesis is that IF the election has been close, specifically IF it had been within the 18 electoral college votes that Ohio had, which it was not (as you correctly point out), that the potential for fraudulent flipping of the Ohio results might have been activated to steal the election, and that we need to make the changes needed to make this fraud impossible, because the next election may be within reach of the fraudsters.

Wasserman is in no was disagreeing with your correct assessment that we had votes to burn.

Rather, his thesis is predicated upon the facts you correctly point out.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Faryn Balyncd (Reply #36)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 01:20 PM

59. Thank you...I thought I was reading a different post than everyone else. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rider3 (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:56 PM

42. You're missing his point.

He's not contending, in the face of the arithmetic, that Ohio actually was the decisive state. His argument is a hypothetical one: If Romney had done well enough elsewhere so that Ohio was decisive (certainly a plausible scenario as of Tuesday morning), then Ohio would have been stolen. On this view, the effect of the 285 electoral votes that Obama already had in the bag was that the plan to steal Ohio, which carried risks of detection, was not implemented, because even if successful it wouldn't give Romney the victory. Therefore, it was better for the conspirators to hold off on the vote theft, so as to improve their chances of being able to get away with it in the future.

That's a logical explanation for reconciling two points: the hypothesis of a vote-theft operation that was ready to go so as to steal Ohio for Romney, and the fact that Ohio went for Obama.

Of course, that alone doesn't prove Wasserman's hypothesis. It merely refutes one possible counterargument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rider3 (Reply #1)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 01:24 PM

60. The operative word is "if"

IF it had come down to Ohio Roved thought he had Secretary of State Husted poised to pull the ol' switcheroo. Other states came in for the President though and Ohio was no longer the linchpin that Rove thought it was going to be (My message to Rove: things change, Turd Blossom, it's not 2004 all over again).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:18 AM

4. Thanks for posting this important warning from Harvey Wasserman.

Mr. Wasserman concludes his article by stating that it will be shame on us if the current tampering-susceptible electronic voting system is still in effect in the year 2016.

I believe (for the reasons stated in Mr. Wasserson's article) that the 2004 Ohio outcome was flipped by the Republican operatives. I also agree with Mr. Wasserson that the same plan was in place for Ohio in 2012, but that it was aborted on election night because the results from other states indicated that President Obama was on his way to 270+ electoral votes without Ohio.

I realize that many will disagree with Mr. Wasserman's view which I share as I have stated above. I hope that we all can agree that, regardless of whatever happened or did not happen in Ohio in 2004 and 2012, it is time for the federal government to mandate paper trails, strict accuracy standards, and tamper-proof measures regarding electronic voting machines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to John1956PA (Reply #4)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:25 AM

6. I think this needs to be our number one priority

Already today in PA there is a move to gerrymander and divide electoral votes.

The Republicans do not accomplish much at all because they spend all their time and money attempting to cheat. The have to cheat because they offer nothing to average Americans.

If it's not taken seriously they'll pull another theft in 2016. That's their goal again though McConnell won't say it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Reply #6)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:45 AM

14. I appreciate your comment on the thread about the Repub's attempt to split PA's electoral vote block

We have to be vigilant because the Repubs' cheating tactics come at us from so many directions.

Tom Delay showed them how to gerrymander in years between the decennial census cycles. Thus, we got a Pennsylvania electorate which is gerrymandered in favor of the Repubs.

Not long ago, Repubs, knowing that they can not win Pennsylvania in a winner-take-all contest, wanted to apportion the state's electoral votes so that the state would no longer be a nail in its coffin of dashed presidential election hopes. Fortunately, that plan failed.

I agree with you that we must make it a priority to combat their cheating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to John1956PA (Reply #4)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 12:28 PM

29. This is exactly right, but since we have to push past the incredulousness of people on the left

as well it's going to be a heavy lift!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to John1956PA (Reply #4)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 01:10 PM

56. Problems (and fraud) SHOULD be fixed. But Obama hit 270 BEFORE Ohio was called.

Romney would not have won, even if he had won Ohio. Once Obama won Virginia and Colorado, that was it. Ba-da-bing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to John1956PA (Reply #4)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 01:17 PM

58. I can see that. How did anyone get suckered into going with those machines anyway?

I guess I know. Republican Governor and or legislature letting the rats in. You know that no one is ever going to trust the other side controlling those things. If the administration had a way of certifying and monitoring all the machines, the other side would accuse them of hacking or patching the software somehow.

Both side should agree on a uniform election system. Hand counted ballots in the open with both sides watching.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:21 AM

5. Further proof that conspiracy theories never die

 

Once a rabid conspiracy theorist latches onto something, it becomes absolute reality.

And the BBV bullshit is amongst the worst of the conspiracy theories out there. It was proven to be nothing but bunk every two years since it really began after 2004.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #5)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:25 AM

7. What is BBV?

??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Reply #7)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:32 AM

9. "Black Box Voting" the moniker put on this CT back after Kerry lost. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #5)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:35 AM

10. Bingo! Such crapola from the CTists.

They're an embarrassment to DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #10)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:37 AM

12. As bad as Truthers, Birthers, poll unskewers, and moon landing deniers, IMO n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #12)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:51 AM

15. Not to mention the JFK CTists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #15)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:55 AM

17. Agreed. Lee Harvey Oswald shared something with Charles Whitman

 

Both were awarded the sharpshooters badge in the United States Marine Corps.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #17)


Response to HangOnKids (Reply #18)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:40 PM

38. +1, HOK.

Also, I notice a similarity of monikers on both sides of the dialog preceding your post 18.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mc Mike (Reply #38)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 05:54 PM

43. Indded Just Like They Were Made For Each Other

Real BFF's!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HangOnKids (Reply #43)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:22 PM

47. I was almost afraid to note the similarity, it sounds so 'conspiratorial'. Nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #10)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:39 AM

13. The deniers of BBV ?

They're an embarrassment to DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #13)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 12:06 PM

23. Rec.

I can not believe anyone here would trust BBV. No paper trail, no proof. Period. There are laws in place for Corporate paper trails.

We need a verifiable paper trail for EVERY vote cast.

I do not know why anyone here would talk down the need for this paper trail.
I have my suspicions as to why...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PowerToThePeople (Reply #23)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 12:09 PM

27. I agree. There is a contingent on the left who likes to attack attempts to protect voting integrity

They are also nuclear power advocates on the left and gun nuts. In certain cases emotions, a kind of hate for uncertainty and anything they consider "woo" overwhelms. It's a blind spot that doesn't serve us in requesting and pushing for a clean election system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Reply #27)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 06:29 PM

44. Maybe they're not as "left" as they'd wish us to believe?

Just a hunch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PowerToThePeople (Reply #23)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 12:38 PM

31. I don't think anyone denies the need for a paper audit trail.

I think people deny the idea that a presidential election was stolen solely because of a giant conspiracy to "fix" an election via electronic machines.

----

I was a poll worker this year, our machines were ES&S brand with a voter-viewable paper audit trail log printer that we all had to sign the end of when it ran out of paper and/or at the end of the day. I noticed that when I hit "submit" on my ballot when I early voted that it printed out a bar code at the end, I presume to have optical scanning done of the printed audit trail, then if necessary go back through it again by hand.

It logged each action on the touchscreen -- the voter could see when they clicked for one person, then changed their answer, that the printer noted they had first clicked on the original candidate then changed their answer. If they had to go backwards on the ballot to previous pages, that was also noted in the audit printing. I got pretty familiar with the sounds it made and was listening for any ,issed prints or jams.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moriah (Reply #31)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 01:33 PM

33. 2 elections actually.

and more shenanigans were used than just bbv. But, bbv played a role. That is the main thing that brought me to DU after the '04 election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PowerToThePeople (Reply #33)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 06:34 PM

45. Many of us came to DU after '04 for that very reason, P2P.

I live in Ohio and know what the GOP did in '04.

That outsiders profess to "know" otherwise, and insult us with pejoratives like CCT, etc., really chaps my hide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moriah (Reply #31)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 06:50 PM

46. I'm glad you had a good experience.

Many, many others weren't as fortunate in '04.

Kerry lost Ohio by the narrowest of margins. BBV was merely one weapon in the large GOP arsenal of election fraud tactics. You may want to read up to refresh your memory of such election foibles as replacing central tabulator hard drives containing vote tallies by Diebold staffers, the posting of ballot tallies on a bulletin board and instruction on how to pretend to run ballots through the counter and check the board for the number so as to avoid hand counts, etc., etc., etc.

I'm sure you recall that 2 election workers went to prison for their part in '04 vote illegalities. Were you also aware that a whistleblower scheduled to testify that he was hired by Diebold to write computer code to flip the vote died when the plane he was piloting crashed?

We must put aside our naivete, at least long enough to enact major reforms before '16.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doremus (Reply #46)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 01:04 PM

50. As I said, most DUers (including yourself from this post) reject the idea....

.... that election fraud via exploits of electronic voting machines was the *only* reason why Ohio was lost in 2004.

I hope that you will consider, if you haven't already, being a poll worker in future elections.

There was one close call regarding the fact the lady doing the check-in thought a driver's license was *required* to be able to vote. A guy showed up without a license, had driven himself. (Glad he missed the local constable, who was up for re-election as an unopposed candidate, who had voted earlier in the day.) He was the only voter at my precinct at the time, so when he went out to his car to look for ID I decided to take a cancer stick break. (I was calling them "voter attraction beacons" when I went outside, as a joke with the precinct captain, because it was the first time I'd ever worked a poll where I had the opportunity to take more than a pee break at lunch!) I saw he was going through his car and I said "Anything with your address that came from the government.... car registration.... or utility bill..." He found a food stamp application that had been mailed, and his work ID, which was a photo ID. She knew the law enough that when he showed something mailed to his registered address from a governmental agency, that was good enough for her -- she really didn't even look at the work ID. I worked the check-in log in 2008, and the laws had not changed -- I looked over the training manuals to make sure before I drove out to nearly the county line to the precinct I was called to as an alternate.

But if she hadn't.... I would have asked if he could be given a provisional ballot if nothing else, or if they didn't want to let him vote requested a call-in to the county clerk, and would have felt it was my duty to make sure he was given every opportunity to vote. I'm glad it didn't come to that, but I was prepared for it. Being part of the process helps you see even small potential voter disenfranchisement and stand up and do something about it. If your precinct isn't using machines with a proper audit trail, you can speak up about it and make sure verifiable voting continues to be a goal for the county you live in. For your state. (If you have a technical bent, being one of the people who knows how to change out the paper trail printers is a good thing, too -- not sure the demographic for poll workers in your precinct, but so far I've been one of the few who was willing to even touch the machines.)

And since Ohio is so influential in elections, as opposed to my little hick precinct I worked this year, you might have far more of an opportunity to make a difference than I have.... though I'm not going to let the fact Arkansas usually goes Republican stop me from attempting to make our elections as fair as they can be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moriah (Reply #50)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 01:26 PM

61. I was a poll worker in '04.

Volunteer position for the Kerry campaign, not a paid county worker. What that has to do with the topic, I'm not sure, other than illustrate that you've made an assumption about me just as you have about the election based on your small anecdotal sampling. You know what they say about assumptions.

Anyway, after cutting through the BS I think we're basically in agreement. No one in this thread is suggesting that BBV is the ONLY way repukes perpetrate election fraud. They are far too underhanded, and to suggest otherwise is silly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doremus (Reply #61)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 03:36 PM

63. They let campaigns even do the work out there?

That actually surprises me, but every state is different. I know Arkansas allows partisan poll watchers, but not partisan poll workers.

And as far as assumptions, well, no one responded to my poll worker check-in thread, so sadly I had to assume there were fewer than there had been from DU this year. Yes, assumptions do get you places that you don't want to go on occasion, but notice I was encouraging you, and anyone and everyone else, to do it in the future, not commenting on the past except my own personal experience.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #10)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 12:29 PM

30. You embarrass yourself equating those who want a verifiable vote

and woo conspiracy types, what is your problem?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:26 AM

8. Yeah well if "Ifs" and "Buts" were candy and nuts...

We'd all have a jolly fucking Christmas. It's time to move past the denial phase of grieving and move on so you can complete the process....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:37 AM

11. didn't Nate just say we did not need Ohio and Florida (combined) this time? eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amborin (Reply #11)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:55 AM

16. no we did not. As soon as they called colorado and nevada, it was a done deal.

ohio at the time was still too close to call.

I can't believe Rove went on with that tirade when it was FUTILE!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 12:01 PM

19. The Patriots would have won the Super Bowl had they scored more points than the Giants!

This is basically saying Mitt would have won if the election had really been close, but since it wasn't he lost. This is really deep political insight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Johonny (Reply #19)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 12:05 PM

22. +1

You posted exactly what i thought. I also think that way too much is made about Sandy stopping Romney's "momentum".

But mostly, i agree with you. This statement is little more than "well, duh" with good grammar.
GAC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 12:02 PM

20. This is seriously stupid

If they could flip the votes they would have done so.

End of argument.

It is fine to be concerned about voting process integrity.

It is not fine to be a conspiracy nut.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #20)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 12:06 PM

24. And it's not difficult to separate the two

Some are doing careful election protection reporting and their reputation is on the line.

Others throw out crazy conspiracies and don't follow it up or connect with others working on the issue.

It's just like all other problems we need to solve, step by step we build evidence and look for solutions.

In this case it's better to err on the side of suspicion rather than be caught and lose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #20)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 02:20 PM

62. Once you have motive, opportunity, and know way to verify how does it matter?

It seems such conditions are beyond unacceptable for as something as fundamentally important as our voting process.

Concerned about the process or believing in a conspiracy, it makes no functional difference. A sane process makes for less theories and less concern.

Also, sometimes there are actual conspiracies, the word exists in many languages for a reason and before they are proven they are theories. That is the nature of the beast.

The lack of transparency and ability to independently verify EARN such suspicion, to not be somewhat cynical is a dereliction of duty as a citizen.

There is little possibility of a fact based conversation because we have permitted a process where facts are unobtainable and so an argument of circumstantial and anecdotal evidence breaks out.
I would think that even those fairly certain that things are on the up and up would want a process they KNOW is rather than their best guess and most of those that now have questions would not if the mist was rolled back.

Who cares if the glass is half full or half empty? How does that change the volume? There is a half glass of water and that is that, it doesn't change not a single drop based on perspective.

The default position would seem to logically be for transparent and verifiable elections, it is for those who wish to argue that default to convince.The fact that all elections are not transparent and verifiable means that any all questions are deserved and reasonable, in my opinion.

Certainly nothing to be indignant about. Cheating and trying to cheat in election is about as old as voting, it is probably best that cynics have a great purpose in this area.
Plus, the system is an institution. The more faith can be created the better the function and greater the participation which increases the strength, viability, and the broadest benefit of our self governance.

You don't shut the conspiracy minded up by arguing, you do it by eliminating the planks they stand on by cleaning up the process which is as sane a thing as can be no matter how nutty and flaky you think the arguments and people making them are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 12:04 PM

21. Here's a good overview of what happened plus sources to check out

http://markcrispinmiller.com/2012/11/score-one-at-last-for-the-election-integrity-movement/


7
Score one (at last) for the Election Integrity movement!

Late last night, after Obama took Ohio, Karl Rove was on Fox News, doggedly refusing to concede. He insisted that Ohio was still in play, as Romney was going to win in Hamilton County—where the votes were “counted” on machines made and maintained by Hart InterCivic, a company effectively controlled by Romney’s family. (The same machines were also used in Williams County.)

So it’s not surprising that the GOP’s Lord Voldemort foresaw an “upset victory” in that county. It is surprising that he said it on Fox News, and when the game was obviously lost, so that a sudden Romney “victory” in Ohio would have seemed especially suspicious—even in the eyes of Rove’s old allies on Fox News (or those not in the loop).

To those of us with vivid memories of Election Nights 2000 and 2004, it was a creepy moment—and things got even creepier when Brad Friedman reported that the website of the Ohio SoS had suddenly gone down, which had also happened at that very hour eight years before; and when it had come back on, Kerry, who had been ahead, was now behind. And—horribly—the rest was history.

But that didn’t happen this time, as Rove had obviously lost control—of himself (his recklessness in mouthing off like that was staggering), and, infinitely more important, of his well-oiled, fabulously subsidized election-theft machine. For all his plans, and all the preparations made by Ohio SoS Jon Husted (among others), Rove was clearly overruled on this Election Day, as cooler heads prevailed.

The fact is that, this time, yet another late-night “upset victory” would have been too risky—for the US press had finally done its job, enough to make a lot of people conscious of what’s happened to our voting system, and, therefore,of what could happen to let Romney “win.”

The honor roll includes, among many others, Harper’s (for publishing Victoria Collier’s brilliant overview), the Atlantic, Esquire, the Christian Science Monitor, Forbes (which came out with a killer piece about Ohio’s voting system early on Election Day), Huffington Post, and even DailyKos (which had been fervently denialist since 2004).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 12:06 PM

25. Ummm.....arithmetic?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 12:07 PM

26. But it didn't.

End of story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigwillq (Reply #26)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 12:10 PM

28. But you better believe that next time

they'll get their game perfected unless blocked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 01:26 PM

32. Nothing to see here Citizens! Please move along!

All is well. All is under control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 02:30 PM

35. And if it all came down to California we'd have a Democratic House

"... and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does." - Groucho Marx

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:42 PM

39. +1. Thanks fd, and Freepress. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mc Mike (Reply #39)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:49 PM

41. Very welcome

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:48 PM

40. Whatever anyone thinks THERE MUST BE A PAPER BALLOT TRAIL

NOW.

There is no excuse not have this.

Even better would be an independent non-partisan service to run all Federal elections.

All of this. NOW.

We need it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:39 PM

49. I think there's a real possibility that Ohio WAS rigged by the Republicans.

Hence, their shell shocked-ness, and Rove's disbelief. It seems to fit. They HAD done .... something. Romney knew it. Rove had assured the financial backers of it.

But things went very wrong. The problem was they hadn't rigged it enough. It was supposed to be close. Really close. So certain things were done, but not enough. Because it wasn't that close, after all, in Ohio.

The end result was that Obama won Ohio by less than 2 pts, when he'd been leading in Ohio by several points, up to 5. The Republican rigging only cut 1 or 2 pts down, which wasn't enough. Also, Romney lost Florida and VA, which they hadn't counted on.

It does seem to fit. Imagine it: They had a meeting in 2010, decided to gerrymander districts throughout the U.S. so that more Republicans would be elected. Done. Then they embarked on the next phase: to cut early voting hours, purge voting lists, change voter registration and showing ID procedures throughout the entire U.S. Then they embarked on something they had done before: the trashing ("losing") of Democratic registrations and the flipping of SOME votes.

They were caught committing voter registration fraud in NINE counties. And a guy was caught trashing Democratic voter applications in another state (Virginia? NC? I forget). The FL governor cut early voting hours so severely that people had to wait in line for hours, up to 7 or 8 hours, to simply vote.

Anyone who thinks these things aren't done, is naive. That also explains why Romney and Rove were so shocked. With all that, they still didn't win.

It's possible it wasn't rigged. But it's very possible that it was. Congress needs to address some of these issues, and do something about the voting machines, as well as the long lines to vote. Imagine the votes Obama would've had without all the "problems" in Florida and Ohio. Funny that it was THOSE states that had problems, don't you think? It's never a dark red state, like mine here in TX, where we breeze in and out to vote quicly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 01:06 PM

51. But he didn't, so who gives a fuck?

Getting tired of these Monday morning quarterbacks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 01:07 PM

52. nope. florida results are official. ohio was nice but not needed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 01:08 PM

53. Romney also could've won if more people would've voted for him.

Masters of the fucking obvious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 01:08 PM

54. There they go again. No, that's not the truth. Obama didn't NEED Ohio to win. CO brought it home.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 01:09 PM

55. Such a bunch of cry babies. We won by over 3 million votes -

get.over.it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 01:37 PM

65. I totally agree with

Wasserman's assessment and has an Ohio voter I closely watched the 2004 election debacle play out. And I throughly believe the repukes tried to steal it again in this election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread