Not signed in (Sign In)
This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.

London Zoo: [Closed] The US Election Thread: One Week Out

Bottom of Page

241 to 260 of 325

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. ...
  4. 9
  5. 10
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. 14
  10. 15
  11. 16
  12. 17
  13. >
    • CommentAuthormith
    • CommentTimeOct 31st 2008 edited
     (4005.1)
    The fuckers are not stealing this election.


    They don't have to steal this election.
  2.  (4005.2)
    Umm, if as Scott hypothesizes the election result is blatantly rigged and the courts fail to provide a remedy aren't protesting and ultimately armed uprising an appropriate response?

    If one agrees with John Locke and Thomas Payne…yes!
  3.  (4005.3)
    I just hope it's a statistical wrap for Obama by 7:00pm or earlier Alaska Time (11 PM EST). Then I'll be able to get off work and not think about the election for another four years. Maybe I can even look forward to Gov Palin's humiliating homecoming.

    Although I throughly expect Ted Stevens will be reelected "because of all he's done for Alaska".


    @vrtbm
    Palin returns to Alaska to campaign for Stevens, vowing to nominate a new Senator upon his re-election and stepping down. (Can she do that?)


    After Gov Murkowski appointed his daughter to his own vacant Senate seat, laws were passed by the Legislature, and voted in by initiative, to prevent that.
    There has to be an election within 60-90 days, the Gov can't just appoint someone. But the two laws are somewhat contradictory, and first the State Supreme will have to figure out what they actually amount to.

    Stevens still represents the "corrupt old guard" of the Alaskan Republicans who stand in the way of her plans for evangelical world domination.She just didn't have the clout to take him on before. She'll campaign for one of her friends to replace him.

    I'd really like to see our Representative, Don Young, go down this election - which is a possibility. He's a blithering blustering idiot. My favorite quote from him was blaming 911 not on Islamic Terrorists, but on the anarchists who protested the WTO in Seattle. Hmm... World Trade Organization, World Trade Center... it's obvious!
    • CommentAuthorKosmopolit
    • CommentTimeNov 1st 2008 edited
     (4005.4)
    Has anyone seen the RNC Hallloween ad ? 90% of the way through it I was convinced it was a parody.
  5.  (4005.5)
    It looks like I'll be driving voters to the polls in Indiana come election day for the Obama campaign. Yeah, didn't vote for the man, but will deliver unto him voters. If it sounds a bit daft it's not. My boss is something of a huge Obama supporter, been canvassing for him for weeks down in Indiana actually and was talking about doing this drive to the polls on Tuesday. From what I understand it's about getting the elderly and infirm to the voting booth and that's nothing but good for me. For all I know they're going in there and pulling levers for McCain just to fuck with people.

    My own voting conscience aside, the notion of helping people get to the polls just seems like a good way to spend election day. I'm going to have my camera on hand, hopefully I'll be assaulted by McCain zealots and go down screaming "I didn't even vote for the guy!" as they carve B's in my cheeks.
  6.  (4005.6)
    The last three days the average Obama lead on RCP has been 6%, 6.5% and 6.3%.

    Tightening? My arse!
  7.  (4005.7)
    John McCain is entirely nuts if he thinks winning Pennsylvania would ensure him the election. If Obama manages to pick up just Colorado, Virginia and Nevada - this is giving Ohio, Florida, Missouri and Indiana to McCain - he still wins by two electoral votes.

    I can't see this new 'illegal alien aunt' thing become an actual scandal. At best, it'll just bolster the already paranoid suspicion that the only reason Obama is becoming president is to move his entire Kenyan extended family to the US.
  8.  (4005.8)
    That's a hell of a long con.
  9.  (4005.9)
    What kind of percentage do you think Obama needs to win by for election theft to be an ineffectual tool for the RNC to use in the future? I think it needs to be at least 8 percent to make it too hot a potato for the media to run with, but I'd like to hear what others here think...
  10.  (4005.10)
    How much a candidate wins by has no bearing on future election rigging. What really impacts election rigging is voting procedures. Badly designed/coded/manufactured voting machines and voting machines with no paper trail make rigging elections easy. Only allowing voting on one day makes it easy. Holding elections on weekdays make it easy (because people can’t take time off work to monitor elections.). To make election rigging ineffective, the US needs to:
    • require a paper ballot, with a separate receipt that can be confirmed online post-election
    • enforce ballot design standards that have been developed by AIGA
    • require businesses to give any employee a day off to volunteer at or monitor polling stations
    • make early voting mandatory, in-person and by mail, in every state to limit the ability of a party to use volunteers to manipulate voters or election results at the polls
  11.  (4005.11)
    @James Puckett

    I'm not referring to the actual rigging of a future election but more towards the perception by the general public the current election was rigged.

    Example; While the last two elections may or may not have been rigged, the numbers were so damned close many thought it deserved closer examination. Throw in the fact the Powers that Be were in the pocket of the winning party, it becomes even more suspicious. So much so in fact that a lot of people believe that the last two elections were without a doubt stolen.

    If this election is close enough, there is no doubt in my mind the RNC will cry 'foul'. But if Obama, who I believe is going to be the victor at this point, wins by a large enough percentage, the RNC will have a hard time convincing most of the News Media or the People that foul play was involved.

    So what percentile do you think Obama needs to win by to comfortably remove the rationale that the Dems 'stole' the elction?
  12.  (4005.12)
    I think the 3 million vote margin Bush won in 2004 was sufficient to convince most people he'd won legitimately (unlike in 2000).

    But some of the wing-nuts will insist even if there's an Obama landslide that his rule is somehow illegitimate.

    Hell these people tried to claim Clinton was an illegitimate President because, thanks to Perot, he won by a plurality not an outright majority.
    • CommentAuthorScottS
    • CommentTimeNov 1st 2008
     (4005.13)
    I was out walking the dogs a bit earlier and saw two people walking across the street from me. Man and a woman, late thirties, early forties at a guess. The guy had a big manilla envelope, the lady had a clipboard. My immediate thought was "canvassing for Obama". My reasons for thinking this:

    1. I'm in Denver, not far off Colfax Ave and Colorado Blvd. Nice little neighborhood, excellent elementary school. Very middle-class.
    2. They were actually canvassing. John McCain has no ground game.

    So as I walked the dogs, I went past them and sure enough... canvassing for Obama. I wanted to ask them for a button, but I didn't. I figured I've already voted, someone else can have the button.
  14.  (4005.14)
    @Val:

    I would say winning the election by at least 4% popular vote, and not needing any states he won by less than 5% of the vote for that state. A strong final EV count will likely help Obama psycholgically, even if some states are closer than that 5%. Looks as if it'll be close, but safe on the popular vote, and fine on states Obama wins by an "uncontestable" margin (thanks to VA / CO; you can take OH, FL and NV out of the picture, and it still looks like a win). Just my guess.
  15.  (4005.15)
    I think the 3 million vote margin Bush won in 2004 was sufficient to convince most people he'd won legitimately (unlike in 2000)
    Just read an interesting article (it's actually from 2005), focusing on the controversial Ohio numbers in 2004. Blows up a lot of the rumors people were using to question the results, but also confirms some shitty, unethical, yet mostly legal things the Republicans did to help secure the state for Bush. Interesting stuff.

    By the by, I agree with the 4% number, though I think his margin will be a good bit larger. There will of course be conspiracy nuts who'll claim it was stolen till the day they die, no matter what happens.
    •  
      CommentAuthorvrbtm
    • CommentTimeNov 1st 2008
     (4005.16)
    I'd recommend _How to Rig an Election_ for people who want to read up more on these tactics. It's basically a tell-all of the horrible stuff both parties do to get votes invalidated, suppress voting blocs, sew confusion, etc.
  17.  (4005.17)
    @doclivingston

    Yeah, nuts that claim a conspiracy and think it's their 'patriotic duty' to do something extreme about it.

    @vrbtm

    thanks for the recommendation.
    • CommentAuthormlpeters
    • CommentTimeNov 1st 2008 edited
     (4005.18)
    Seems like every third ad on TV is a McCain surrogate add, showing Reverend Wright screaming, "God damn America".

    Irritates the hell out of me because I know there are some middle of the road voters that the constantly repeating message could scare.
    • CommentAuthorRenThing
    • CommentTimeNov 1st 2008
     (4005.19)
    Hi all, officially married, and jumped back in. You guys write a lot in a day and half.

    Wife pointed me to this article about a Sarah Palin rally that had no word of John McCain at it.

    I know it's a little early but it'll be interesting to see if Palin keeps "campaigning" over the next four years.
    •  
      CommentAuthorLBA
    • CommentTimeNov 1st 2008
     (4005.20)
    smokin!!!!

241 to 260 of 325

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. ...
  4. 9
  5. 10
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. 14
  10. 15
  11. 16
  12. 17
  13. >

This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.