Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why do you think the party has lost the House, the Senate, etc?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Neil Lisst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 10:53 AM
Original message
Why do you think the party has lost the House, the Senate, etc?
I'm a lifelong Democrat. In the past few years, I've watched the party lose the presidency and both houses of Congress. We have also gotten our teeth kicked in on local and state elections.

Why do you think we are losing?

What do we need to do if we want to win instead of lose?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
1. One word
Diebold.

Five numbers.

18181.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. what's the number mean?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meganmonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Freaky coincidence? I on't know....check out the demopedia article
Edited on Mon Oct-24-05 10:57 AM by meganmonkey
http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/18...

and if you google the number you'll get LOTS of hits

:scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
electropop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. That's one of the vote-total differences that popped up repeatedly
in Diebold tallies. A little too peculiar for coincidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. I'm hoping one of the smart guys from 2004 ER&D
can come over and explain it...so I will hold off a minute with my narrow explanation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #2
11. In the first machine fixing vote counting - that number kept appearing as
a GOP sub total that helped wiped out the Dem running against the GOPer.

The DU computer folks found/invented cheating code that would produce the number - but like all this dealing with the black boxes, no one chased down - but the revelation dsid seem to speed up the Diebold effort to "reprogram machines for next election with the latest software" -

It would be LOL - if it were not sad.

:-(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neil Lisst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. I've been through the desert on ...
America, I presume?

I'm familiar with your theory. Why don't you expound on it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #5
14. I can't give it the justice it deserves
I am in awe of TIA, Andy Stephenson and some of the others here who held this stuff to the light of day.
As Megan pointed out...refer to

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/18...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #14
80. here's a good list
http://www.udpc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15

We had an extensive converstation about election fraud


Before our forum was hacked (how appropriate), we had quite an extensive conversation about election fraud in 2002 and 2004 elections. I will attempt to reconstruct some of the links previously listed.

First, the 2004 election results forum on Democratic Underground is a great place to check out. Read anything and everything by "TruthIsAll":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


More interesting links:

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1970 /
http://www.VelvetRevolution.us#020505 <-- video
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%2218%2C181+votes%22&e...

20 Amazing Facts About Voting in the USA

Did you know....

1.80% of all votes in America are counted by only two companies: Diebold and ES&S.

http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/04280... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diebold

2.There is no federal agency with regulatory authority or oversight of the U.S. voting machine industry.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0916-04.htm
http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/04280...

3.The vice-president of Diebold and the president of ES&S are brothers.

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/private_company.h...
http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/04280...

4.The chairman and CEO of Diebold is a major Bush campaign organizer and donor who wrote in 2003 that he was committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/28/sunday/main63...
http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1647886

5.Republican Senator Chuck Hagel used to be chairman of ES&S. He became Senator based on votes counted by ES&S machines.

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2004/03/0...
http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/031004Fitrakis/031... . .html

6.Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, long-connected with the Bush family, was recently caught lying about his ownership of ES&S by the Senate Ethics Committee.

http://www.blackboxvoting.com/modules.php?name=News&fil... le&sid=26
http://www.blackboxvoting.com/modules.php?name=News&fil... www.hillnews.com/news/012903/hagel.aspx http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/000896.php

7.Senator Chuck Hagel was on a short list of George W. Bushs vice-presidential candidates.

http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_28/b3689130.htm http://theindependent.com/stories/052700/new_hagel27.ht...

8.ES&S is the largest voting machine manufacturer in the U.S. and counts almost 60% of all U.S. votes.

http://www.essvote.com/HTML/about/about.html
http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/04280...

9.Diebolds new touch screen voting machines have no paper trail of any votes. In other words, there is no way to verify that the data coming out of the machine is the same as what was legitimately put in by voters.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0225-05.htm
http://www.itworld.com/Tech/2987/041020evotestates/pfin...

10.Diebold also makes ATMs, checkout scanners, and ticket machines, all of which log each transaction and can generate a paper trail.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0225-05.htm
http://www.diebold.com/solutions/default.htm

11.Diebold is based in Ohio. http://www.diebold.com/aboutus/ataglance/default.htm

12.Diebold employed 5 convicted felons as senior managers and developers to help write the central compiler computer code that counted
50% of the votes in 30 states.

http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,61640,00.html
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/10/301469.shtml

13.Jeff Dean, Diebolds Senior Vice-President and senior programmer on Diebolds central compiler code, was convicted of 23 counts of felony theft in the first degree.

http://www.chuckherrin.com/HackthevoteFAQ.htm#how
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/bbv_chapter-8.pdf

14.Diebold Senior Vice-President Jeff Dean was convicted of planting back doors in his software and using a high degree of sophistication to evade detection over a period of 2 years.

http://www.chuckherrin.com/HackthevoteFAQ.htm#how
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/bbv_chapter-8.pdf

15.None of the international election observers were allowed in the polls in Ohio.

http://www.globalexchange.org/update/press/2638.html
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/10/26/loc_elexoh....

16.California banned the use of Diebold machines because the security was so bad. Despite Diebolds claims that the audit logs could not be hacked, a chimpanzee was able to do it. (See the movie here http://blackboxvoting.org/baxter/baxterVPR.mov .)

http://wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,63298,00.html http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4874190

17.30% of all U.S. votes are carried out on unverifiable touch screen voting machines with no paper trail.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/28/sunday/main63...

18.All - not some - but all the voting machine errors detected and reported in Florida went in favor of Bush or Republican candidates.

http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65757,00.html
http://www.rise4news.net/extravotes.html
http://www.ilcaonline.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=N... ;file=article&sid=950
http://www.ilcaonline.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=N... ;file=article&sid=950 http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00227.htm

19.The governor of the state of Florida, Jeb Bush, is the Presidents brother.

http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/local/7...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10544-20...

20.Serious voting anomalies in Florida - again always favoring Bush - have been mathematically demonstrated and experts are recommending further investigation.

http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/governmen... ory/0,10801,97614,00.html
http://www.uscountvotes.org /
Tue May 10, 2005 9:20 am


Clarity
Site Admin


Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 24
Speaking of TruthIsAll


Had to repost:

TruthIsAll (1000+ posts) Sat May-07-05 04:30 PM
Original message
Our Evidence vs. Their Evidence

Edited on Sat May-07-05 05:22 PM by TruthIsAll
OUR EVIDENCE

We know Kerry led the pre-election state polls.
We know Kerry led the pre-election national polls.

We know Kerry led the post-election state exit polls, 51-48%.
We know Kerry led the post-election national exit poll, 51-48%

We know documented voting machine glitches favored Bush 99% of the time.

We know the media and E-M will not release detailed raw precinct data.
We know Blackwell refused to testify before Conyers.
We know Mitofsky refused to testify before Conyers.

We know that there were over 21 million new voters.
We know Kerry won the vast majority (57-62%) of new voters.

We know there were 3 million former Nader voters.
We kknow Kerry won Nader voters by 71%-21% over Bush.

We know Party ID averaged 39% Dem/35% Rep/26% Independent in the prior three elections.
We know Party ID was 38/35/27 for the first 13047 National Exit Poll respondents.
We know it was changed to 37/37/24 for the final 613 in the 13660 Final.

We know Kerry, like Gore, won the female vote 54/46% up until the final 660 respondents.
We know it was changed to 51% in the 13660 Final.

We know Bush 2000 voters represented an IMPOSSIBLE 43% of the 2004 electorate in the final 13660 Exit poll.
We know it was changed from 41% in the first 13047
We know that Bush had 50.456 mm votes in 2000.
We know that about 3.5% of them have since died.
We know, therefore, that the Bush percentage could not have been higher than 39.8% (48.69/122.26).
We know that with the 39.8/40.2% weighting, Kerry won by 52.4-46.7%, or SEVEN million votes.


We know the 2000 election was stolen - by Bush in Florida where 175,000 punch cards (70% of them Gore votes) were spoiled.
We know SCOTUS stopped the recount and voted 5-4 for Bush.

We know the 2002 election was stolen (ask Max Cleland).

We know that the National Exit Poll MoE is under 1%.
We know because we checked the NEP margin of error table.
We know because we did the simple MoE calculation.
We know that Kerry won the Natioanl Poll by over 3%, 51-48%.
We know the odds are astronomical that the deviation was triple the MoE.

We know that 42 of 50 states deviated from the exit polls to Bush. We know that includes ALL 22 states in the Eastern Time Zone.

We know that 16 states deviated beyond the exit poll MoE for Bush, and none did for Kerry.

We know that touch screen voting machines became widely used in 2004.

We know that Republicans fought against paper ballots for Diebold and ESS touch screens.

We know that ALL Diebold ATMs provide a paper receipt.

We know that the deviation trend from the exit polls to the vote was approaching ZERO until 2000, when there was a dramatic reversal.

We know that scores of newspapers which supported Bush in 2000 supported Kerry in 2004.

We know that Kerry won the Ohio Exit Poll, by at least 51-48%.

We know the media will not report in any of the above.


THEIR EVIDENCE:
Something we don't know.
The rBr hypothesis: Bush voters were reluctant to speak to exit pollsters.

But..
We know that many Republican voters deserted Bush for Kerry.
We know there were hardly any Gore Democrats who voted for Bush.

Ladies and Gentleman of the Jury:
Have you reached a verdict?
Tue May 10, 2005 9:24 am


Clarity
Site Admin


Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 24
Jim Lampley: The Biggest Story of Our Lives


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/2005/05/b... for full article:

Tandalayo_Scheisskopf (1000+ posts) Tue May-10-05 12:35 PM
Original message
Jim Lampley: The Biggest Story of Our Lives


At 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on Election Day, I checked the sportsbook odds in Las Vegas and via the offshore bookmakers to see the odds as of that moment on the Presidential election. John Kerry was a two-to-one favorite. You can look it up.


People who have lived in the sports world as I have, bettors in particular, have a feel for what I am about to say about this: these people are extremely scientific in their assessments. These people understand which information to trust and which indicators to consult in determining where to place a dividing line to influence bets, and they are not in the business of being completely wrong. Oddsmakers consulted exit polling and knew what it meant and acknowledged in their oddsmaking at that moment that John Kerry was winning the election.


And he most certainly was, at least if the votes had been fairly and legally counted. What happened instead was the biggest crime in the history of the nation, and the collective media silence which has followed is the greatest fourth-estate failure ever on our soil.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/2005/05/b...

This is Jim Lampley, the sportscaster, people. This should give you some idea on how deeply this story has drilled into our collective consciousness. Mr. Lampley is not known as a tin-foil-hatter, although I am sure someone will now try to tar him with that brush.
Tue May 10, 2005 9:46 am


Clarity
Site Admin


Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 24
Do the math


TruthIsAll (1000+ posts) Wed May-11-05 12:06 PM
Original message

TIA constraint: 2004 Votes = G+B+N+New, or New = 122.26-49.21-48.69-3.21



Total 2004 votes = Returning 2000 voters + New Voters

Total 2004 votes = Gore + Bush + Nader + New voters

New = 122.26-49.21-48.69-3.21

New = 21.15 (minimum)

Kerry won 57-60% of New voters.

Total Kerry vote = K = .9*Gore + .1*Bush + .7*Nader + .57*New
Total Bush vote = B = .1*Gore + .9*Bush + .2*Nader + .41*New

You do the math..
Wed May 11, 2005 8:35 am


Clarity
Site Admin


Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 24
Jim Lampley Latest


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/2005/05/t...

You'll never watch boxing the same way!
Thu May 12, 2005 5:47 pm


Clarity
Site Admin


Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 24
things you must also believe if you really believe that...


Another I "lifted" from Democratic Underground

If you still think the 2004 election was legitimate, then here are some other things you must also believe if you really believe that George W. Bush won the election:

1. That the exit polls were WRONG.
2. That Zogbys 5pm election day calls for Kerry winning OH and FL were WRONG. He was exactly RIGHT in his 2000 final poll.
3. That Harris last minute polling for Kerry was WRONG. He was exactly RIGHT in his 2000 final poll.
4. That the Incumbent Rule (that undecideds break for the challenger) was WRONG.
5. That the 50% Rule was WRONG (that an incumbent doesnt do better than his final polling)
6. That the Approval Rating Rule was WRONG (that an incumbent with less than 50% approval will most likely lose the election)
7. That Greg Palast was WRONG when he said that even before the election, 1 million votes were stolen from Kerry. He was the ONLY reporter to break the fact that 90,000 Florida blacks were disenfranchised in 2000.
8. That it was just a COINCIDENCE that the exit polls were CORRECT where there WAS a PAPER TRAIL and INCORRECT (+5% for Bush) where there was NO PAPER TRAIL.
9. That the surge in new young voters had NO positive effect for Kerry.
10. That Bush BEAT 99-1 mathematical odds in winning the election.
11. That Kerry did WORSE than Gore against an opponent who LOST the support of SCORES of Republican newspapers who were for Bush in 2000.
12. That Bush did better than an 18 national poll average which showed him tied with Kerry at 47. In other words, Bush got 80% of the undecided vote to end up with a 51-48 majority - when ALL professional pollsters agree that the undecided vote ALWAYS goes to the challenger.
13. That voting machines made by Republicans with no paper trail and with no software publication, which have been proven by thousands of computer scientists to be vulnerable in scores of ways, were NOT tampered with in this election.
14. That people who voted for Bush were not anxious to speak to exit pollsters in the states that Bush had to win (like Florida and Ohio) where the exit polls were off, but wanted to be polled in states that he had sewn up (like Arizona, Louisiana and Arkansas) where the exit polls were exactly correct.
15. That Democrats who voted for Kerry were very anxious to be exit-polled, especially in Florida and Ohio (and that this is what accounts for the discrepancy between the exit polls and the actual votes in these two critical states).
16. That women were much more likely to be polled early in the day in Florida and Ohio. That is another reason why the exit polls were wrong in those states. In those states in which the exit polls were correct to within one percent, women did not come out early.
17. That network newscasters who claim that those who consider the possibility of fraud are just wild conspiracy theorists do not have an agenda.
18. That it is just a coincidence that only since the 2000 presidential election have exit polls failed to agree with the actual vote - and that Bush won both disputed elections.
19. That exit polls are not to be trusted in the United States, even though they are used throughout the world to monitor elections for fraud.
20. That even though more votes were cast than there were eligible voters in many precincts of critical states, it is not an issue that needs to be covered in the media.
21. That the absence of a paper ballot trail for touch screen computers does not encourage fraud, even though they have been proven by hundreds of computer experts to be highly vulnerable to fraudulent attack.
22. That statistical tests which indicate a high probability of fraud are just conspiratorial junk science.
23. That Bushs vote tallies could exceed his exit poll percentage in FL by 4%. Based on 2846 individuals exit polled, the polling margin of error was 1.84%. The odds of this occurrence: 1 out of 1667.
24. That his vote tallies could exceed his exit poll percentage in OH by 3%. Based on 1963 individuals exit polled, the polling margin of error was 2.21%. The odds of this occurrence: 1 out of 333.
25. That his vote tallies could exceed his exit poll percentages in 41 out of 51 states. The odds of this occurrence: 1 out of 135,000.
26. That his vote tallies could exceed the margin of error in 16 states. Not one state vote tally exceeded the MOE for Kerry. The odds of this occurrence: 1 out of 13.5 Trillion.
27. That his vote tallies could exceed a 2% exit poll margin of error in 23 states. The probability of this occurrence: as close to ZERO as you can get.
28. That of 88 documented touch screen incidents, 86 voters would see their vote for Kerry come up Bush - and only TWO from Bush to Kerry. The probability of this occurrence: as close to ZERO as you can get.
29. That Mitofsky (who ran the exit polls), with 25 years of experience, has lost his exit polling touch.
30. That by disputing the Ukrainian elections, the Bush administration would base its case on the accuracy of U.S. sponsored exit polling, while at the same time ignoring exit polls in the U.S. presidential election, which the media reported Kerry was winning handily.
31. That Bush could overcome Kerrys 50.8% - 48.2% lead in the National Exit Poll Sub-sample (13,047 polled) and win the popular vote: 51.2% - 48.4%, a 3.0% increase from the exit poll to the vote tally, far beyond the 0.86% margin of error. The odds of this occurrence: 1 out of 282 Billion.
32. According to a London-based insurance actuary, the odds of all of these things happening in ONE election, let alone two elections in a row, are too astronomical to be calculated!
Fri May 13, 2005 11:38 am


Clarity
Site Admin


Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 24
Pie anyone?


http://www.recountflorida.com/ufed/president.php?county...
Sun May 15, 2005 3:58 pm


Clarity
Site Admin


Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 24
GREAT site


http://www.exitpollz.org /
Sun May 15, 2005 6:13 pm


Clarity
Site Admin


Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 24
26 page report on 2004 exit poll discrepancies


National Election Data Archive Project
---
Working Paper
----
Patterns of Exit Poll Discrepancies
More On the Implausibility of a Uniform Bias Explanation for the
2004 Presidential Election Exit Poll Discrepancies
May 12, 2005
Updated May 17, 2005

http://uscountvotes.org/ucvAnalysis/US/exit-polls/USCV_...
Wed May 18, 2005 1:20 pm


Clarity
Site Admin


Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 24
Voter Confidence Resolution


Saturday, April 23, 2005
Voter Confidence Resolution
(v6.1, LAST UPDATED: 5/14/05 5pm)

Whereas an election is a competition for the privilege of representing the people; and

Whereas each voter is entitled to cast a single ballot to record his or her preferences for representation; and

Whereas the records of individual votes are the basis for counting and potentially re-counting a collective total and declaring a winner; and

Whereas an election's outcome is a matter of public record, based on a finite collection of immutable smaller records; and

Whereas a properly functioning election system should produce unanimous agreement about the results indicated by a fixed set of unchanging records; and

Whereas recent U.S. federal elections have been conducted under conditions that have not produced unanimous agreement about the outcome; and

Whereas future U.S. federal elections cannot possibly produce unanimous agreement as long as any condition permits an inconclusive count or re-count of votes; and

Whereas inconclusive counts and re-counts have occurred during recent U.S. federal elections due in part to electronic voting devices that do not produce a paper record of votes to be re-counted if necessary; and

Whereas inconclusive results have also been caused by election machines losing data, producing negative vote totals, showing more votes than there are registered voters, and persistently and automatically swapping a voter's vote from his or her chosen candidate to an opponent; and

Whereas inconclusive results make it impossible to measure the will of the people in their preferences for representation; and

Whereas the Declaration of Independence refers to the Consent of the Governed as the self-evident truth from which Government derives "just Power";

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:

Because inconclusive results, by definition, mean that the true outcome of an election cannot be known, there is no basis for confidence in the results reported from U.S. federal elections; and

Be it also resolved:

The following is a comprehensive election reform platform likely to ensure conclusive election results and create a basis for confidence in U.S. federal elections:
1) voting processes owned and operated entirely in the public domain, and
2) clean money laws to keep all corporate funds out of campaign financing, and
3) a voter verifiable paper ballot for every vote cast and additional uniform standards determined by a non-partisan nationally recognized commission, and
4) declaring election day a national holiday, and
5) counting all votes publicly and locally in the presence of citizen witnesses and credentialed members of the media, and
6) equal time provisions to be restored by the media along with a measurable increase in local, public control of the airwaves, and
7) presidential debates containing a minimum of three candidates, run by a non-partisan commission comprised of representatives of publicly owned media outlets, and
preferential voting and proportional representation to replace the winner-take-all system for federal elections;
Be it further resolved:

When elections are conducted under conditions that prevent conclusive outcomes, the Consent of the Governed is not being sought. Absent this self-evident source of legitimacy, such Consent is not to be assumed or taken for granted.


***
Wed May 18, 2005 4:11 pm


Clarity
Site Admin


Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 24
From the Crisis Papers... Current Events for Dummies


helderheid (1000+ posts) Mon May-23-05 04:18 AM
Original message
From the Crisis Papers... Current Events for Dummies (stolen 2004)

Edited on Mon May-23-05 04:19 AM by helderheid
<snip>
FIDDLING WITH THE VOTES

Q. You alluded above to electoral hanky-panky in the 2004 election. Are you serious? And, if so, how could a political party get away with fiddling with the election returns? Wouldn't such manipulation be so obvious that they'd risk their reputation forever?

A. Since one third of the electorate in the last election voted on computer-voting machines with no verifiable paper trail, we'll never be certain how many votes might have been tampered with. We do know how non-secure the voting process is. Prior to the 2004 election, for example, Howard Dean and Bev Harris demonstrated on CNBS how easy it was for them to access the vote-counting software, alter the figures, and exit without anybody being the wiser.

(I'm inserting a link to it here: http://www.udpc.org/evote-lowband.htm )

Since the voting machines and the secret software that compiles the votes of the various precincts are effectively controlled by three Republican companies, and since statisticians using demographics and exit-polls have determined that Bush had only one chance in a million of winning the election, it is highly likely that some fiddling took place with the results. Under the current system, local returns, for instance, could be 100% accurate -- even with a verified paper trail -- and an election still could be stolen, due to compiling fraud.

Precisely because we know how often such electoral theft occurs around the world, we Americans should be extra-vigilant about it happening here. But we're in denial: We're not Zimbabwe, we tell ourselves; surely, American politicians wouldn't be that brazen and corrupt. But Karl Rove and his minions are masters of the Big Lie technique and a host of electoral dirty tricks. And John Kerry handed them the best gift of all; he didn't even raise a question about the validity of the result, just gave his concession speech quickly and exited stage right.

The only way to guarantee an honest, transparent vote in contemporary America is to return to paper ballots, hand-counted in the presence of both partisan and independent monitors -- and with tested/certified software adding up the grand totals, again in the presence of election monitors. If the U.S. doesn't take these steps, it's asking for more corruption of the process and suspect election results in election after election. The Republicans benefit from the current system and will do nothing to change it; the required changes will not happen on their own but will require massive and unrelenting citizen pressure.
</snip>

A whole lot more here:



http://www.americanpolitics.com/20050521Weiner.html

Last edited by Clarity on Sun Aug 07, 2005 11:47 am; edited 1 time in total
Sun May 22, 2005 10:21 pm


Clarity
Site Admin


Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 24
John G. Mason : Questions about the Bush Victory


mardi 19 juillet 2005

Imprimer cet article | Cet article au format PDF

1) Peut-on aujourdhui, aprs lanalyse des rsultats, dresser une physionomie des deux camps lectoraux qui se sont affronts ?

2004 a stolen election ?

First we should note that the November 2004 election was an extremely hard fought campaign that raises serious questions in the minds of analysts about the overall integrity of the American electoral process. Coming after the judicial coup dEtat de velours that decided the 2000 election in favor of Mr. Bush ; fears that this years election would be stolen were widely felt on the Left before the election.

Now, many feel that their worst fears were realized for two reasons : the weird discrepancy between the election-day exit polls that reported Kerry getting 5 million more votes than he actually ended up receiving in the official count, and the massive number of spoiled minority ballots that were invalidated after they were cast.

In the days following the November election, there was a great deal of speculation in the blogosphere asking whether the winning formula for the Republicans in 2004 hadnt been two parts evangelical mobilization in rural America to one part massive voter fraud in Florida and Ohio.

This line of speculation was soon backed up by academic specialists such as Steve Freeman of the University of Pennsylvania, who argued that the discrepancies between exit poll data and the reported vote from the some swing states like Ohio constitute a clear indication that there was massive voter fraud at the county or state level - just as they would anywhere else in the world and as they did recently in the Ukraine . Freemans argument has been backed by seasoned reporters such as the BBCs Greg Palast but also strongly disputed by other progressive analysts such as Ruy Teixeira of and David Corn of The Nation.

<snip>

more
http://www.temps-reels.net/article1679.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #80
83. Outstanding compilation
I was hoping someone would bring this stuff forth--have you thought about another post of it in GD lately?
Seems reminding folks about this is very timely.
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #83
86. thank you!
But aren't we in GD? :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #86
87. ummm yeah
But I was thinking something outside of THIS post...lol.
I'm a thread killer and I gave you the kiss of death. :silly:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #87
88. LMAO
I can do that :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #87
89. done
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #89
90. Awesome
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oregonindy Donating Member (790 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #1
77. another word. corruption
not just a word for republicans its a democrat word to. They got in because the general populace saw the democrats in power as being corrupt and not listening to the will of the people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #1
78. AGREED
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #1
91. Bingo!!!!!!!! You hit the nail right on the head!!! eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mestup Donating Member (756 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 10:58 AM
Response to Original message
6. Also, Shrinking Voter Pool. No-longer-voters tend to vote Dem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. I don't believe your theory holds water for this reason
Record numbers of voters turned out in the elections.
Generally you only see that when people want a change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #9
40. Correct
Nobody stands for hours on tend in the rain and cold to vote fo the status quo

I say Diebold and GEMS databases and hisiorians, asssuming the republic surivives, will have fun with it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mestup Donating Member (756 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #9
66. 2004 "record" number of voters was still only 55% of eligible voters.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 10:59 AM
Response to Original message
8. abandoned FDR became the business party with left wing cultural
window dressing instead of right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brotherjohn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:00 AM
Response to Original message
10. Not ruthless enough, clear enough in counter-arguments.
Edited on Mon Oct-24-05 11:01 AM by Brotherjohn
They've been ruthless, and shameless, in attacks.

But we've been too timid and wishy-washy in counter-attacks. To afraid to be seen as whatever they're attempting to label us as.

We need to learn, they're going to do it anyway. Be forceful. Be strong. Ble clear. Don't take no S#*! That's how Clinton/Carville responded to such attacks, and they won. The difference with Bush is, they (Rove et al) have gotten more ruthless, and we in response have gotten more timid.

It's not the issues. On the issues, we win every time.

A qualifier, though. One (sort of) issue: Fear. They've "won" on defense/terror issues so far because they've used fear to the hilt. But that's just part of their ruthlessness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogfacedboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:00 AM
Response to Original message
12. We didn't see the real threat in time.
We didn't really believe that the radical right was taking over the Republican party, and we failed to see the size of the machine they were building. However, I believe that machine is falling apart, albeit slowly. I see a swing back our way coming. Keep the faith. Work for change. Unfortunately, we can't change what has already happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
porphyrian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #12
47. What "we" you talkin' about, Kemosabe?
People here have been onto them since before they took control. As far as the general public and a few of the "moderate" Democrats, you're right, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogfacedboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #47
72. It took them a long time to build
the radical right machine. People got complacent. I saw it as it happened, but who listens? The thugs had themselves a good operation for a while, but like I said, that machine is falling apart. I've been watching their con since Reagan. I'm sure it goes back to Nixon,
as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
porphyrian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #72
74. Yeah, remember how bad Reagan sucked...
...if you weren't a rich white American? Homelessness was at its highest since the Depression, the military was paying $400 for a hammer, and all the progress in civil rights we'd made in the previous decade was being systematically reversed. I hated that asshole. Now, they act like he was a god.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogfacedboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 08:29 AM
Response to Reply #74
82. The early Reagan years were terrible
for many. For me, it was the worst time in my life as far as employment went. That was the start of the big Union bust. That mf'er Reagan put my Uncle out of work when he broke up PATCO. Twelve years on the job down the drain. Nice way to treat a war veteran, eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
porphyrian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #82
84. Yeah, they really support our troops.
As long as those troops die, and they don't have to pay for them. Or go to their funerals, or acknowledge them in any way outside of photo-ops and campaign years. They're traitors, every one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mizmoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:01 AM
Response to Original message
13. the cyclical nature of the universe
When I was little in the 1970 liberalism ruled all. Then people got sick of it. Now conservatism rules all. I expect to see a swing back and forth between the two a few times before I'm done on this earth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TX-RAT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:02 AM
Response to Original message
15. Just my opinion
We're moving to far left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #15
31. On What?
We have been caving in to the Repulicans on practically everything.

Oh, I get it, you want us to come out for banning abortion and throw gays to the lions.
No thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TX-RAT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #31
58. NO, you didn't get it at all, your 0-2
Tax's, immigration, farm subsidies, actually subsidies of any kind, firearms, energy. These are the things i fell we are the weakest on.

(Oh, I get it, you want us to come out for banning abortion and throw gays to the lions.
No thanks.)


Thank you for proving my point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #58
62. You Want Us to Move to the Right on Taxes?? Energy??
You want to to try to out-Republican the Republicans when it comes to cutting taxes for the wealthy?

That would be difficult to do, even if it weren't a terrible idea.

I suppose we are supposed to out-Republican the Republicans on giveaways
to the oil companies too -- let them trash the environment and drill everywhere without compensating anybody for the spills.

We already caved in and bent over on gun control. Not sure what you expect us to do there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TX-RAT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #62
69. I'm not wealthy and i received a tax cut.
Sure helped me.


(I suppose we are supposed to out-Republican the Republicans on giveaways
to the oil companies too -)

Please point out these giveaways, you mentioned. How were they given away?

(let them trash the environment and drill everywhere without compensating anybody for the spills.)


Everybody i know of who have had spills on their property, were compensated, me included.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-26-05 01:39 AM
Response to Reply #69
92. And you're saying it wasn't instantly wiped out by increased medical--
--expenses, tuition, local taxes? Mine sure was.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neil Lisst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:03 AM
Response to Original message
16. Who have we lost from our traditional coalition?
Who have we lost from our traditional coalition?

LABOR
We've lost a lot of labor votes, mainly on social issues.

WHITE WORKING POOR
We've lost a lot of poor white votes, mainly on social issues.

MINORITIES
We've lost some minority support on social and religious issues.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gulfcoastliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #16
65. We didn't lose them, we jettisoned them in favor of corp PAC$$$
And their lobbyist drafted legislation like NAFTA, GATT, WTO, APEC, China Trade Pact (most (all?) of these championed by & signed into law by DLC prez Bill Clinton)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:04 AM
Response to Original message
17. Because a large portion of the poor/middle class hate poor people for
Edited on Mon Oct-24-05 11:04 AM by jsamuel
being lazy and they blame all those lazy people on Democrats that give away all their money to the poor people.

That is the main thrust of the public sentiment against the Dems and they have done nothing to confront this issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
porphyrian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:04 AM
Response to Original message
18. Whoring for the "moderate" vote instead of the non-voter.
It's the strategy taken in the last three major elections, and each time it's failed miserably. Even with the Diebold machines, if the margin hadn't been so close (i.e. if we'd have courted non-voters instead of pretending to be republican-friendly), the cheating either wouldn't have worked or would have been so blatant as to have been questioned sooner by the majority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neil Lisst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #18
22. I don't buy it. We're always selling to the nonvoter.
But nonvoters are nonvoters for a reason. They don't care.

Winning elections is about registering people and getting them to the polls on election day. The registering of voters by the Democratic party in 2004 was great. We registered them and we got them to the polls.

Elections are won in the middle, not the edges. Anyone who thinks voting for Al Gore is the same as voting for George Bush deserves to live in a country run by rightwing nuts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
porphyrian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #22
26. Well then, your thinking is part of the reason we've lost.
And, if we continue follow your lead, the republicans will continue to win. What you fail to understand is why non-voters don't vote, and you've already accepted that they're not going to, so you won't even try. That's the problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neil Lisst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #26
32. Thanks, but this ain't my first rodeo.
Like I said, we registered and got out the vote.

Sorry you don't get it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
porphyrian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #32
37. And that's your second error.
I do get it. You want to continue to pursue a failing policy. I don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:07 AM
Response to Original message
19. Because Democrats suck at politics
Republicans have learned to simplify politics and stay on message (lying most of the time) while Democrats just like Kerry use long-winded intellectual statements and confuse the hell out of everyone.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. Also, Republicans have used wedge issues very successfully
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neil Lisst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #20
29. Indeed, indeed.
Edited on Mon Oct-24-05 11:18 AM by Neil Lisst
They have used wedge issues to take some of our traditional coalition.

They run at blacks on homosexuality.

They run at whites on affirmative action, etc.

They run at labor with the second amendment.

They run at the middle class with "welfare cheats."

They run at the religious with "atheists."

They do exploit wedge issues, but we often make it easy for them do so by being unreasonable ourselves. There is a large distance between believing in something and disrespecting what others believe.

In my opinion, our core problem is too many political snobs who enjoy being offensive to mainstream America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProfessorGAC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
21. Huh?
You need to look at the aggregate to see what went wrong.

The right has taken a very granular approach, and used the arbitrary divisions of states and districts to their advantage. The overall numbers indicate that the split, nationwide is actually a bit bettr than 50:50 in favor of dems.

IOW, if one looks at all votes for federal office holders (excluding the presidency), you will see that despite the Repubs majority in the House, more people voted D than R. Same thing in the Senate. The margins are within statistical boundries of "sameness", so it really shows there is no majority outside those ivory towers.

In addition, some of the largest states (in population) are swinging Dem. (Illinois is now fully "D" dominated.) So, the actual numbers within the electorate don't jibe with your "getting our teeth kicked in" analogy.

For goodness sake, it took the Repubs 25 years to smear and lie their way into a "majority". Don't be so impatient to think it will be instantly reversed. But, reversed it will be.

The Professor
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neil Lisst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #21
35. I've looked at the aggregate. I've studied each state.
Just like I always do.

This thread proves the ends that many Dems will go to in order to avoid any self-examination that might conclude some of our more dogmatic members might be turning voters off.

I know how we do in every state, and I know where we're losing ground. It's the middle. It's not the far left, and it's not the nonvoter. We are losing votes we used to get, and those of us who like to win instead of just show our colors are troubled by it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:10 AM
Response to Original message
23. A theory
Surveys historically have indicated that there is a correlation between education level and voting -- people with a higher level of education are more likely to vote than people with less education. In addition, voters with a college degree skew slightly more in the direction of voting for Democrats than voters without a college degree.

I think what the Repubs have done is held onto their traditional voting base, while taking positions that appeal to, and increase turnout among, fundies, etc. who tend to skew Repug.

What Dems need to do is up their turnout. For example, African Americans turn out to vote in lower percentages than white voters; college students, who I believe supported Kerry over Bush, also turn out in lower numbers than older voters.

onenote

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:11 AM
Response to Original message
24. A combination of spinelessness and Puggy dirty tricks.
The DLC and centrism were never the answer. We sold out our principles for a few crumbs from the corporate pig feast.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neil Lisst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #24
33. Really? I thought it was the turncoats who voted for Nader.
That cost us the presidency in 2000.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #33
36. I don't even want to fight that fight anymore.
Except to comment that if the DLC hadn't sold out there would have been a lot less ammunition in the Nader camp.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #36
43. And after doing all my readying on Florida
I will say it again, Nader or no Nader bush was going to "win" for what hapepned in 2000 was a coup

Once people realize this, then they realize how far the pugs have been willing to go... we WON both in 2000 and 2004, To his credit, Gore fought, but Kerry did not... why? Kerry "lost" the popular vote too.

They will continue to steal eletions as long as we let them, and people need to be ready to rise in a major national strike and a massive march on DC, next time it happens, or can yuo say President Jeb Bush? I knew you could.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neil Lisst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #36
48. The DLC didn't turncoat. The GREEN Dems did.
how hard is that to admit?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #48
50. It was a coup, whether green dems voted for Nader
Edited on Mon Oct-24-05 12:18 PM by nadinbrzezinski
or Mikey Mouse was gonna make a zilch of a difference

It was a coup

Once you get over this ugly fact you will realize we will continue to loose until we admit just how rigged elections are NATIONWIDE

We could run, for all I care, A. Hitler, we would still loose, for as Stalin put it, very well mind you

"It does not matter who votes, but who counts the votes."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neil Lisst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. It was a coup in which the Greens helped Bush.
And they did it by abandoning the best presidential candidate on environmental issues ever.

No, Kucinich doesn't count. I'm talking about candidates who have a chance of being on the ticket.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. It was a coup
Edited on Mon Oct-24-05 12:42 PM by nadinbrzezinski
and since it worked so well, they tried to use Nader again in 2004, Nader was their patsy for the crime. If Nader was there or not, they were going to win

Once you get over that little fact, you realize that blaming the greens will get you nowhere, but blaming harris, the USSC, and a corrupt system, just may.

What they succeeded in doing is transferring your anger from the proper targets to the greens.

So I say to you, get over it, it does not matter who votes, (or in this case for whom) but who counts the votes.


Oh and SHHH don't tell anyone but the tricks used in Florida and later Ohio were the same damn tricks the CIA used all across Latin America to get ahem friendly regimes elected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #52
57. Well, Nadin, I think you once posted something I disagreed with.
Can't remember when or where, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #57
64. Well I am sure we have all disagreed with each other
Edited on Mon Oct-24-05 01:28 PM by nadinbrzezinski
if we did not, we would be Republicans in good standing....

:-)

that said the DLC is part of the proplem as well... and I beleive many of us realize they are what Moderate Republcians once were.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WA98296 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:12 AM
Response to Original message
25. Lazy uninformed population, lying polls, controlled media and ballot box
It's not that hard really to take over a democracy. Get control of the main media sources, dumb down the population which is easy because they take democracy for granted and are too lazy to keep an eye on things, put out polls that are skewed exactly the way you want, and then make sure you can flip the votes electronically at the last second. Then when everyone is reeling in disbelif, place credit on "values" voters. Piece of cake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Norquist Nemesis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:14 AM
Response to Original message
27. 25 years of brainwashing
"Liberal", "Left" and "Democrat" have been so deeply maligned as being associated with bad or unwanted consequences. While doing this, the alternate that's offered is the GOP.

Imagine someone not involved or knowledgeable about politics...specifically the "left" and the "right". For the first time, this person decides to go get involved and attends a "meet and greet" gathering for a candidate running for office. After listening to the candidate pitch, this person has the opportunity to speak with the candidate one on one and asks, "Where do you stand on the issue of X". The candidate smiles and replies, "I stand on the right side of the issue. My position is X. This is the right thing for the country."

As the person follows the race and possibly becomes more involved, negative statements are made about the "left" and "Liberals". Positive, uplifting statements are tied to the candidate being "right". Eventually, the "Left" vs the "Right" bubbles out in the open. The person already associates "left", "Liberals" as "Not Right". Democrats are "Left", "Liberal" and "Not Right". So, by association the GOP/Republicans are "Right".

It's only been about the last 10 years or so that they can come out and be so bold to say Democrats, IMO. But the association is already there, because they've effectively instilled the visceral hatred for the "Left" and "Liberal".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabasco Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #27
38. Pervasive and well-funded propaganda campaigns.
Very focused messages and they ALWAYS stay on theme.

Liberals are soft on defense and hate the military.
Liberals are only for the poor and minorities.
Liberals are immoral.
Liberals love abortion.
Liberals control the media.
Liberals are soft on crime.

The corporate elite spend billions on propaganda because it works. They are reaping the benifits now by raping our treasury and our Nation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #27
42. And for this I fully recomend
What's the matter with Kansas

I have met many a voter who vote Repub, but what they want from their politicians is exactly what people like DK advocate for... but they will never vote Democrat becuse Democrats have been malighted

It does not help that this particular pesron had NO CLUE who DK was... and for god sakes he was a presidential candidate, which brings us to the seond layer we need ot overcome, the tele.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:15 AM
Response to Original message
28. Pro-corporate Dems, redistricting, and Diebold. In that order.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MarsThe Cat Donating Member (978 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
30. Supposedly, people get more 'conservative' as they get older...
it doesn't hold true for me, i know...but as the boomer bubble has moved up the age ladder, it's caused all sorts of...problems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
34. I trace it back to Murdoch's ability to get the NFL games
I think that was the key to turn Fox into a moneymaker, instead of a money loser.

After that, Fox gained "legitimacy" as a "network".

Before that, it was all bad shows, with few exceptions. There was a great bit on a show about "Married . . . with children" where Al said "Get ready to tune in Fox" and everybody got all kinds of metallic stuff up tied to the antennas . . .

Once the NFL started showing on Fox, the people started recognizing it.

And then, the media conglomerates got pissed that the government was not allowing them to buy up all the media outlets they wanted . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
39. The Democrats could try standing for something.
Since the advent of the DLC, "triangulation", "corporate sponsorship", and all the other attempts to become Republicans, they have stood for nothing except gaining power at any price.

Who knows, standing for something, might even work. It's worked for the Republicans for quite some time. However nauseating what they stand for is, they pretty much stick to it, don't prettify it (with the possible exception of "compassionate conservative"), and don't apologize for it.

The Democrats, on the other hand, spend most of their time assuring everyone that their not "liberal", are very "patriotic", are "tough on defense", are really "pro-gun", "pro-business", "pro-tax cuts", etc, but just not as much as the Republicans.

Other than standing for nothing, doing nothing, and acting like milquetoasts in the face of fascism and corporate greed, I can't imagine why they can't get elected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #39
41. But they do
you just never hear the ones who do on the tele

And lets be honest do YOU watch the SPAN? If you do you are like the other three who watch it very much a minority
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:53 AM
Original message
That's an easy one
Back when dems did get elected the vote was counted and tabulated either by humans or on machines that were easily understood by just about any human.

Since the mid 80's an increasing number of votes were handled by machines that only a select few could understand or operate. After 2000 the repukes in congress dished out billions of dollars to increase the number of those machines and indeed, over 80% of the vote in 2004 was counted by those machines owned and operated by a select few private corporations that wholeheartedly support republican politicians.

See, I told you it was easy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
44. we need MASSIVE campaign reform
old-school good-old boy Democrats get their asses kicked by the GOP organized crime syndicate
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newportdadde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
45. Read "Whats the Matter with Kansas?"
It has a lot of good insights. To sum up, our party stopped being the party of the regular Joe. It abandonned its pro-worker economic stance with NAFTA etc. Given that Joe Average has two choices:

1) Choice One - Democratic Party - Essentially the same(at least for Joe Average) as far as job goes, both pro outsourcing pro corpoarte. Liberal on social issues, abortion etc.

2) Choice Two - Republican Party - obviously not worker friendly. More conservative socially.

Given the two choices Joe Average, having been essentially abandoned on the economic front moves to social issues where he/she can at least feel some power and go along with a 'traditional' policy they believe in. There wallet is bare either way so they will try to get something.

Until we get back to pocket book issues and jobs we will loose.

Read the book.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sufrommich Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #45
60. I so agree with your analysis.
Edited on Mon Oct-24-05 01:18 PM by sufrommich
One candidate who would promise to make it economically unwise for a so called American companies to bail on workers here and move operations to 3rd world countries would win back the labor vote.Dems should be screaming from the rooftops every time a Delphi pulls this shit.It's criminal that people would work their whole lives in one factory and be denied their hard won pension.The Dems need to focus on working people as their base,these people have no problem having their taxes used to create a safety net for the less fortunate.They do however,think able bodied people should work for a living.The Dems need a strong work program possibly like Roosevelts and included in that program should be affordable child care and universal health care.Let the GOP paint it as godless communism,it's not, and people are ready for it.Edited for spelling
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #45
63. Now the question is why the party stopped standing up for the workers
I'd guess it is the amount of corporate special interest money flowing around in Congress today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
garybeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 12:00 PM
Response to Original message
46. DIEBOLD. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
adwon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 12:05 PM
Response to Original message
49. That's easy
Congress was lost because Democrats had a string of scandals during the late 80s and early 90s that painted the party as corrupt. 60 years of dominance also aided the loss because people were lazy, figuring Democrats would always be in control. Additionally, whenever a war ends, the party that was in control tends to get the boot. This was true in 1946 and it was true with the end of the Cold War. Bush got tossed in 92 and Congressional Democrats in 94.

Why are we losing?

No vision. No strategy. Everything is presented piecemeal. The closest thing I've seen in years was Edwards' One America idea, though that wasn't terribly well defined. Nobody really knows what they want. Some want Clintonesque free trade and worker training programs, while others want to rebuild American industry through protection if necessary. That's just one example of the lack of consensus. Democrats don't ever agree on everything, or most things, but it strikes me that, on economic issues especially, most of the problems in America aren't caused by some nebulous force called 'globalization,' they're caused by bad legislation. After all, most of the arguments offered to immunize offshoring from criticism fail to account for America's disproportionate strength as a buyer of others' goods. 'Protectionism won't work because it will cause a trade war.' That's a crock. We aren't the country that's export-oriented. Maybe people should take that into account.

Sorry for the rambling :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neil Lisst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #49
53. adwon, you've made sound comments. No need to be sorry.
We need a unifying person, and we need a cogent message to sell the voters. Our biggest problem is every person in the party wants the party and its nominee to be THEM, their beliefs, to the exclusion of all others.

We've stopped being the big tent party. Now we have people who like small tents with no one in them except those who adhere to whatever gospel that tent revival is preaching.

We have too many people who are too finicky about who votes on their side. Elections are about compromise, not getting your way. It's not so much getting the person you most like as avoiding the ones you least like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jose Diablo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 12:49 PM
Response to Original message
54. As for the House and Senate, I'd say those loses are due to election fraud
Edited on Mon Oct-24-05 12:54 PM by Jose Diablo
The thing is though, the federal election is actually controlled by the state level election boards. The state election boards have been bamboozaled by slick salemen selling that election machinery. I'd say in most cases the state election board officials want to do right, but the machines are not transparent to allow the state officials to see what is going on. Then those state officials, for self preservation have to go along because they bought the machines from the slick salemen selling a crummy product. To admit the machines suck, would also mean their jobs.

Now there is another type of state official that is just plain crooked. I would be refering to the those types in Florida and Ohio. Like Harris and Blackwell. This stuff is pure corruption.

The losses at the positions for the state and local, much of those losses can be attibuted to lack of money coming from the party at the federal level. I don't think we are getting our moneys worth from the so called consultants that are hired to help during the federal elections. Some high priced lawyers are getting rich from working the party inside the 'beltway' and the effects of this is lack of money to send to the local grassroots efforts needed to elect the local and state officers.

I think Deans efforts to bring more effort at the local grassroots level activities is a good start to solve the local problems. However, he also is having problems with the corporate arm of our party trying to sieze prower fom him, think DLC. And this is the core problem at the federal level, it's a trojan horse placed in the party by the corporatist. Corporate money is being used to subvert the party at the federal level, then this is screwing the local level out of money. Dean's getting money through the internet has given him a lot of clout at the national level. I don't know if it will be enough to keep him in position. That corporate money, it's like a drug. It feels good, but will kill ya in the end.

Clintons 3rd way, has sold us down the river.

Think of a picture of Uncle Sam, laid back, with a rubber tube tied around his arm and a hypodermic titled "corporate money" stuck in his vein, like a doper would shoot heroin. Thats the image I see. It's not a funny picture though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 12:55 PM
Response to Original message
55. We gave up on our bread and butter economic issues for donations
from big monied interests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blindpig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 12:55 PM
Response to Original message
56. Because it has abandoned the people.
By accepting the notion that markets are more important than the welfare of the people the party gave up the one thing that could surmount all of those nasty little wedge issues: the pocketbook. It has always been canon that bread&butter wins elections and I'm sure it's still true. The Democratic Party stands by as this country continues to hemmorage good paying jobs. It refuses to offer what people want and desperately need, national health care. Running hard on just those two issues would make the nut. Give the people what they want and they will come to the polls.

I find the honesty of your profile refreshing. How much do they pay you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
59. Get rid of the Loyal Opposition mentality
Edited on Mon Oct-24-05 01:09 PM by formercia
and start kicking ass and taking names.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 01:16 PM
Response to Original message
61. They've thrown their natural supporters to the wolves in exchange
for corporate $. They talk about helping the little guys, but as soon as they get elected they sell us out. They've crippled themselves by taking directions and $ from those they should be against. How can a dem campaign on ending corporate welfare, for example, when they've voted to increase it every time it comes up.
:banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
67. We Were Murdered and Robbed in the Senate





"we have this anthrax" (which came from a US Government lab)



any questions?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 01:34 PM
Response to Original message
68. Paper Trail & Fairness Doctrine
our airwaves are filled with RW PROPAGANDA unfortunately.

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lexingtonian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 03:06 PM
Response to Original message
70. depends on what level you look at

In the Really Big Picture, the world has changed and the American People is using the two Parties to do the work of getting rid of the obsolete stuff, implementing good changes, and pacing the rate of change to manageable.

From ~1988 to 2002 the story was that the country used the Parties to keep institutional check on each other. For two elections it has decided to let hardline Right varieties of Republicans fully dominate and do their best. As we can see, that turns out at the same time to be a way of expending the Republican Party and its basis in its present incarnation.

Since the end of the Cold War the American People has played musical chairs with its Cold War political groupings/factions. A faction gets domination and serves to fulfill some of its agenda. Then, having let it serve to its limits, The People crushes its power and a previously undefeated faction of the other party becomes the agenda-controlling one.

1986/88- moderate Republicans become the dominant political faction via Bush Sr.'s election over throwback FDR Democrat Mike Dukakis and Iran-Contra problems wiping out the hardline Nixon/Reagan Republican set for a time.

Then in 1989/1990 the international Cold War formally ends, but residues of it and its conflicts (artifically sustained or suppressed) and dependencies/mercenary regimes (e.g. Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, North Korea, Taiwan, Ukraine, Armenia, Albania, Serbia, Cuba, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Congo, Angola, Likudnik Israel, Belarus, Kyrgyztan, 'communist' China) and the guerilla and terrorist groups aligned with it take another generation or so to fix, reform, or stomp out.

In the late Eighties the domestic Culture War broke out fully in the U.S., which is ultimately a much-deferred conflict between American society retaining its medievalism/colonialism, including the Agrarian and Industrial Age religions and socioeconomic order and castes, versus going over to Modernity and a society leveled only to economic classes and a post-Industrial (knowledge-based) economy fully. The central argument turns on whether there is a Divine Order Of The World that Americans should implement on themselves and try to impose on the world at large.

Worldwide there was a wave of Right wing takeover of power from Cold War compromise-based governments in the early Nineties, an anti-Modern/pro-Traditional effort by older generations in the societies to stall or reverse what little social and economic Modernization had taken place in the societies during the late stages of the Cold War and prevent any more of it taking place. Stuff then happens like the Tienanmen Square protest and massacre and the attempted coup by the military in the Soviet Union, and the Christian Right and radical Republican revolt against Bush Sr in the U.S. The reactionaries can't ultimately win but they do hold power for various amounts of time.

In the U.S. there's a pattern of alternate intensification/control of the Right and slippage/falling back.

1990/92- moderate R's crushed by moderate/conservative D's (Congress and Bill Clinton)
1994/96- conservative D's crushed by conservative R's (Congress)
1998/00- conservative R's lose marginal control/initiative to moderate D's (Congress)
2002/04- moderate D's crushed, hardline R's take control (Congress and Bush people)

All the polling says the Culture War pretty much plateaued and turned between 1998 and 2004. (I think of the Lewinsky matter as the Gettysburg campaign of the Right.) Modernity will win out. The effects take a while to work their way to the top levels of political power, though. Sadly, the effort on the Right to maximize their efforts to hold on to power were more desperate and more successful once the matter seemed turned. But the Liberal/Left countereffort has begun to catch up again, now, and the attrition of the Right is beginning to tell. Throw in the willingness to expend politicians as throughout the Nineties, and-

2006/08- hardline Right R's crushed, leadership marginally goes over to liberal D's

But liberals will be kept on pretty short leish; The People fears them more than it loves them while in office. They're strong and effective medicine to the illnesses but hard for average voters to take, only resorted to when it's all so dire that no one/nothing else will do.

No doubt centrist-y or populist Democrats will recover dominance pretty quickly once the liberals finish the basic cleanup and institutionally settle the onetime social 'wedge' issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neil Lisst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #70
71. While some it can be attributed to natural ebb and flow ...
some of it is due to our failure to have a united party behind Gore in 2000, and the loss of progressives to the Green party in key states.

2002 was not part of the natural ebb and flow. That resulted from our elected reps caving in to the Bush war juggernaut, and becoming Republican Lite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lexingtonian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #71
76. I wish

politics were a morality play, but it's not that easy.

A lot Democrats got elected or reelected in the Seventies, Eighties, and Nineties precisely because in their political behavior they aren't/weren't much better than the people they represent/ed. Remember that moderate Democrats are 'not elitist' and liberal Democrats are 'elitist'. Conservative Democrats were/are the opposite of 'elitist'- look at Zell Miller. 'Elitist' means something like unwilling to cater to the prejudices and hysteria and such of their constituents. There wasn't a single liberal Democratic incumbent defeated in the '02 elections, it turns out, with the exception of Lynne Rivers losing in primaries against John DIngell. If you look at the '02 elections the striking number of Democratic losses are actually in governor races and new House districts gerrymandered to be slightly Democratic (according to Nineties voting).

Al Gore spent his whole campaign dissing the liberal base. The way he treated Clinton for the Lewinsky business was disgusting, and The debate among Democrats that year was about whether to vote according to purity (Nader) or lesser evil (Gore). In the end liberals halfheartedly voted for Gore, but when he couldn't pull through in Florida on his own power (because just enough people voted for Nader, and his people hadn't bothered to see to any effort to deal with the known incompetence and corruption in the Florida election system) there just wasn't the sense of mutual trust and commitment there. He simply did not have the cred for the core of the Democratic Party to show up and put up a fight. Plus, the additional moderates who voted for Gore did so on a benefit of the doubt- Bush polled ahead during November, so they gave up support for Gore where Bush voters didn't give up on their man.

The larger picture on the 1996 to 2002/04 Democrats in Congress- the Gephardt/Daschle era- was that they won the election races that mattered by running moderates against the domestic policy extremism of their opponent. Republicans complained that these Democrats and the caucus they controlled the power of had 'no ideas', which was in a strict sense true. And these Democrats as a group had a vulnerability of no mandate or experience or clear line of thought about foreign policy, let alone the unity to compete for equal standing in the extreme case in foreign policy: war. It was where they could be outflanked easily, and they were.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sufrommich Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #70
73. Sounds good to me n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neil Lisst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 04:55 PM
Response to Original message
75. I really appreciate the responses.
I don't respond directly to all because that would be annoying.

But I do appreciate all the comments. I agree that we have had elections stolen recently, and that is an issue we must address. But that's another thread, maybe for one of you to start. We must have a separate paper ballot for the presidential race. No more untraceable computer results.

Even so, we must always look at ourselves to see what we can do to reach NOT US, but those who haven't voted with us recently.

I would encourage people to think more before they so glibly tear apart the widereaching coalition that has served us well. We can't win without Christian votes. We can't win without small business votes. We can't win without the white working poor.

My Dem party has a WELCOME mat out front, not a MEMBERS ONLY sign.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
agincourt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
79. Election theft plus,
a population too easily influenced by RW propaganda. Why Americans are so dumbed down and vulnerable to RW attack machines, I do not know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neil Lisst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #79
81. it's like watching the Astros lose ...
Sure, the umpire giving Jermaine Dye first base may have beat us, but we lost it, too.

I look at 2000 and 2004 like that. 2002, we lost all on our own, I'm afraid, but who really knows? Even so, we have to address both sides of the problem: (1) we have to stop the fraud by the Republicans, and (2) we have to win up and down the ticket.

No matter which religious or spiritual philosophy one finds appealing, most have a common thread: fix yourself. We have to criticize US or we won't do better. But we have to keep the peace among US, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cantstandbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 09:37 AM
Response to Original message
85. money, access to power, and an unenlightened public. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Oct 21st 2014, 10:21 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC