agreed. This is the time to make a stink of it too. There is too much on the line, and it will motivate a seriously depressed party.
Gosh, if pubbies would do a better job of vetting their candidates, maybe we wouldn’t be electing crooks.
The way to stamp it out is to create a voter-card and then a live-online database (or even a “static one” which records this information for accumulation later on) which records that someone has voted already (with that card). That card can only be issued to voters who are qualified for the state that they are in and the address that they have.
That’s the way to eliminate this kind of fraud.
They steal at will, while their constituents cheer them on. Democracy is dead. America is over.
No, it's not.
It is quite unlikely, though.
I agree. We have to win by a clear 5% or we lose to fraud. I may as well not vote anymore. I know of a person here in Texas who had to vote a provisional ballot because she was on record as having voted already. She had not voted, but someone in the Oak Cliff area (95% Obama country) had already voted under her name. So, basically, she did not really vote, as provisional ballots are never counted unless it is for dems.
Begich: “We ran an aggressive campaign, especially when it came to early voting and absentee.”
Yesh, we know: “Vote early, AND VOTE OFTEN!”
This makes me furious!
You said — “It is statistically impossible for every single close race in which Republicans lead to switch to a Dem winner during lengthy counts and recounts.”
That wouldn’t necessarily be true — if — there was some inherent practices that distinguish the Republican voter from the Democrat voter.
For a very simple example (and only for illustrating the point and not saying that this is true...) — let’s say that all Republicans vote early and are done three hours before the poll close, while all Democrats are habitually late and end up standing in line all the way up to the end, at the point the polls close.
Then when the counts are made for *close races* — the Democrats would *always pull ahead* — because their votes are counted last, since they are *habitually late* and are the last ones to vote....
In that case, there would be nothing wrong, “statistically” when the Democrats always win the “close races”...
There could be some other factor that is similar to this, which makes it statistically possible (by voter habits or methodology of counting..., let’s say, always counting Metro areas last... for example...).
I still don’t understand how absentee ballots can favor the ‘Rat in Alaska. They’re usually cast by military, elderly, and folks traveling out of state, aren’t they? What does Palin have to say about this, if anything?
IMHO, the dims are stealing AK and MN because the "new votes" are disproportionally dim.
it seems that it will now be impossible for a republican to win any dead heat races.
Statitistilcally impossible for 2 races to switch? Better go back to statistics 101. Minnesota is the one to watch out for fraud, more so than Alaska, but the Republicans have no one to blame but themselves, for fielding a convicted felon and a RINO. I despise Franken, but Coleman is only marginally better. Georgia is going to be a warzone in the Chambliss/Martin run-off. Expect millions to be poured in, and Obama to possiblly grace the unwashed southern hordes with an in-person plea for Martin’s victory. Perhaps Joseph Lieberman possible caucus switch will be the only thing from preventing a 60 seat majority for the Dems. Get ready for the swift fury of fascism to come raining down, whilst the Federal Reserve continues to vacuum the country dry, and the police state applies itself with breath-taking force. I fear for the very concept of democratic popular sovereignty.
I can’t cry for Stevens. He dug his own grave a long time ago.
I disagree, Castro and Saddam always won, why not Dem candidates?
Your opinion is proof of nothing. The original ballot count is ongoing. I see no evidence of “stealing the election” whatsoever.
The implied explanation about all the “corrections” favoring Democrats is that people who vote Democrat are less educated and/or less intelligent than those who vote Republican—therefore if mistakes or misunderstandings are made they will be made by Democrats. Dems don’t come out and say that, but it’s the implication I read into what they do say.
I know several people who have their own small businesses. They are going all cash.
At this point, I think it may actually be best if they get their 60 votes in the Senate so they can’t blame the Republicans for anything. It’s not like Specter, Snowe, Collins, and some of the other RINOs in there are going to use the filibuster to do anything important like block liberal judicial nominees, so will this really make any difference?