― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 2 November 2004 16:18 (nineteen years ago) link
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 2 November 2004 16:27 (nineteen years ago) link
In the event of a tie, the Dems best bet is to "shed" votes in the house to a third canidate.
― BrianB (BrianB), Tuesday, 2 November 2004 16:45 (nineteen years ago) link
What are we going to ... *do*?
― the bluefox, Tuesday, 2 November 2004 16:53 (nineteen years ago) link
― dan (dan), Tuesday, 2 November 2004 17:04 (nineteen years ago) link
― the bluefox, Tuesday, 2 November 2004 17:06 (nineteen years ago) link
― Emilymv (Emilymv), Tuesday, 2 November 2004 17:12 (nineteen years ago) link
― the bluefox, Tuesday, 2 November 2004 17:13 (nineteen years ago) link
lolz so much rong in this thred.
― The Brainwasher, Wednesday, 21 May 2008 06:01 (sixteen years ago) link
It's true that almost everyone on the thread predicted a Kerry victory, which we didn't get. Clearly the thread looks full of tragic miscalculation somehow.
But I think it's useful to see how many people - a majority of ilxors here, and they were drawing on many ongoing polls and opinions - thought, right to the end, that Kerry was likely to win. They didn't think his campaign was pathetic, or doomed, or that he was obviously a useless candidate, or that after xyz event he didn't have a chance.
I think it's useful to have that confirmed, because so much BS is retrospectively spun saying those things. 'Kerry's sluggish camp never overcame the swift boat fiasco'; 'as a NE liberal, Kerry never had a chance'; 'Kerry was always clearly a loser'. If any of these things were true, then this thread would not have looked the way it did.
I have read that there may have been very significant electoral fraud, in Ohio? - I think Suzy said so too. I think that, whichever way an election goes, we have to take in the possibility that many votes have not been properly counted, either through incompetence or confusion or corruption. If this is true, then it makes the calibration of opinion, popularity --> votes etc more problematic. This is true of the UK too, where electoral fraud seems a major problem.
― the pinefox, Wednesday, 21 May 2008 08:24 (sixteen years ago) link
Was the 2004 election stolen? by Robert F. Kennedy Jr http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen
― Mordy, Wednesday, 21 May 2008 08:52 (sixteen years ago) link
Thank you, Mordy. I read something like this in a bookstore in NYC.
[After carefully examining the evidence, I've become convinced that the president's party mounted a massive, coordinated campaign to subvert the will of the people in 2004. Across the country, Republican election officials and party stalwarts employed a wide range of illegal and unethical tactics to fix the election. A review of the available data reveals that in Ohio alone, at least 357,000 voters, the overwhelming majority of them Democratic, were prevented from casting ballots or did not have their votes counted in 2004(12) -- more than enough to shift the results of an election decided by 118,601 votes.(13) (See Ohio's Missing Votes) In what may be the single most astounding fact from the election, one in every four Ohio citizens who registered to vote in 2004 showed up at the polls only to discover that they were not listed on the rolls, thanks to GOP efforts to stem the unprecedented flood of Democrats eager to cast ballots.(14) And that doesn’t even take into account the troubling evidence of outright fraud, which indicates that upwards of 80,000 votes for Kerry were counted instead for Bush. That alone is a swing of more than 160,000 votes -- enough to have put John Kerry in the White House.(15)]
The question that always arises for me is -- if this is true (certainly some will say it isn't), then doesn't it make a nonsense of the whole previous year + of campaigning, fundraising, arguing, debating etc? Why not just call the 2008 election off now and give it to McCain?
― the pinefox, Wednesday, 21 May 2008 08:57 (sixteen years ago) link
[On the evening of the vote, reporters at each of the major networks were briefed by pollsters at 7:54 p.m. Kerry, they were informed, had an insurmountable lead and would win by a rout: at least 309 electoral votes to Bush's 174, with fifty-five too close to call.(28) In London, Prime Minister Tony Blair went to bed contemplating his relationship with President-elect Kerry.(29)]
― the pinefox, Wednesday, 21 May 2008 08:58 (sixteen years ago) link
Well, in part because you can only pull off this kind of fraud if it's reasonably close. Also, because hope is not entirely snuffed out, yet.
― Casuistry, Wednesday, 21 May 2008 18:26 (sixteen years ago) link
I, for one, was completely otm.
― Pleasant Plains, Wednesday, 21 May 2008 18:41 (sixteen years ago) link
Those farm signs were killer.