Forums | MacLife

Tetrachloride · 2006-10-30 11:15 pm

The following allegations are presented as a public service

1. Voter registration suppression in Missouri of low-income people http://mydd.com/story/2006/10/30/195410/27

The GOP has engaged in a systemic and coordinated attack on ACORN's efforts and reputation using false allegations of voter fraud to justify serious voter suppression measures. These actions could have the effect of reducing core progressive turnout in key regions of the state. But ACORN is fighting back.

In 2006, ACORN submitted more than 70,000 voter registration applications collected from Missouri citizens in under-represented, mainly African-American neighborhoods; the organization is campaigning for a statewide ballot initiative to raise the minimum wage. The disenfranchisement campaign began with a series of attacks in the media by Republican Board of Elections officials claiming that ACORN had submitted "potentially fraudulent cards." ACORN has not been allowed to see the evidence behind these attacks in St. Louis, despite promises and repeated requests.

2. Florida electronic voting machine are said to be flipping votes http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/10/30/11638/196

.Several South Florida voters say the choices they touched on the electronic screens were not the ones that appeared on the review screen -- the final voting step. -- http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/ne … 869924.htm

3. Phone spamming http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/30/191920/50

So here I was, sitting in the Christine Jennings for Congress HQ, when the phone rang and I answered to hear a very irate man from south Sarasota County.

Apparently, this man had just received his fourth automated phone call about our candidate of the day, and he was livid......

The calls start out sounding like they're from Christine, asking for voters to send her to Congress. They then morph into distorting her positions and misrepresenting her views.

Then they call back.

Then they call back again.

Then they call back again.

By this point, any sane person will be furious at the campaign responsible for such disturbances, and will curse the name of any candidate that dared to intrude on their lives in this manner.

Anyone here live near these 3 disputes ?

-----

I received my first push-poll on Indian casino gambling the other day where the poll's questions are designed to encourage you to vote for (or against) someone. I didn't realize it was a push-poll until toward the end as this one was rather mild. For that particular race, I had already decided.

Robo-calls should be outlawed.

Spytap · 2006-10-30 11:55 pm

Cause we know that all of these reports which echo the same sad tale are simply imaginary fables made up by bitter democrats. I'm sure that despite the fact that there are dozens of similar reports from multiple elections, nearly allof which benefit a specific political party, nothing will come of this.

Metacell · 2006-10-31 3:52 am

Not whilst the foxes are guarding the henhouse.

Farmerkev · 2006-10-31 6:42 am

If I was a Dem voter I'd wonder what the point was in me even bothering to vote.
According to my party my vote probably won't count anyway.

bratboy · 2006-10-31 8:42 am

Farmerkev wrote:
If I was a Dem voter I'd wonder what the point was in me even bothering to vote.
According to my party my vote probably won't count anyway.

I see you've received your weekly talking points, then?

Farmerkev · 2006-10-31 8:54 am

bratboy wrote:
Farmerkev wrote:
If I was a Dem voter I'd wonder what the point was in me even bothering to vote.
According to my party my vote probably won't count anyway.
I see you've received your weekly talking points, then?

No, was this mentioned somewhere I missed?
It just dawned on me as I was reading yet another thread that mentions votes not counting that if the Dems thought the votes don't count there would be little point in trying to get out the vote.

bratboy · 2006-10-31 9:55 am

Farmerkev wrote:
No, was this mentioned somewhere I missed?
It just dawned on me as I was reading yet another thread that mentions votes not counting that if the Dems thought the votes don't count there would be little point in trying to get out the vote.

I think many people are worried about the votes being screwed with, yes.

Freakout Jackson · 2006-10-31 10:33 am

Farmerkev wrote:
bratboy wrote:
Farmerkev wrote:
If I was a Dem voter I'd wonder what the point was in me even bothering to vote.
According to my party my vote probably won't count anyway.
I see you've received your weekly talking points, then?
No, was this mentioned somewhere I missed?
It just dawned on me as I was reading yet another thread that mentions votes not counting that if the Dems thought the votes don't count there would be little point in trying to get out the vote.

Next round it'll be get out the torches and baseball bats.

isaly · 2006-10-31 11:39 am

Farmerkev wrote:
bratboy wrote:
Farmerkev wrote:
If I was a Dem voter I'd wonder what the point was in me even bothering to vote.
According to my party my vote probably won't count anyway.
I see you've received your weekly talking points, then?
No, was this mentioned somewhere I missed?
It just dawned on me as I was reading yet another thread that mentions votes not counting that if the Dems thought the votes don't count there would be little point in trying to get out the vote.

That's called propaganda aimed at getting the suggestable to give up.

sturner · 2006-10-31 12:15 pm

I don't know what you guys' problem is. I'm a registered Republican. They will give me a good ballot, and won't mess with it.

Farmerkev · 2006-10-31 12:21 pm

isaly wrote:
Farmerkev wrote:
bratboy wrote:

I see you've received your weekly talking points, then?
No, was this mentioned somewhere I missed?
It just dawned on me as I was reading yet another thread that mentions votes not counting that if the Dems thought the votes don't count there would be little point in trying to get out the vote.
That's called propaganda aimed at getting the suggestable to give up.

So if Dems are telling Dems their votes won't count because the Reps have the machines rigged....
Help me out here., Dems WANT to lose the race with poor turnout?

sturner · 2006-10-31 12:22 pm

I think it's more about complaining that the votes might not be counted. They are attempting to get the voter base outraged and motiviated to demand changes.

Farmerkev · 2006-10-31 12:26 pm

A bit late for changes now.

jerwin · 2006-10-31 12:39 pm

bratboy wrote:
Farmerkev wrote:
No, was this mentioned somewhere I missed?
It just dawned on me as I was reading yet another thread that mentions votes not counting that if the Dems thought the votes don't count there would be little point in trying to get out the vote.
I think many people are worried about the votes being screwed with, yes.

If the powers that be fiddle with a vote here and a vote there, and successfully nullify a close election, their criminal acts may remain undetected. But if the democrats persuade a lot of people to vote democratic, any shenanigans will rise have to the level of "massive fraud", which is somewhat more likely to be detected.

Of course, those opposed to "free and fair" elections have their own strategies for muting possible protest.

From a certain point of view, the propaganda of disenfranchisement is usefully revolutionary. It's all about fear

Farmerkev · 2006-10-31 12:58 pm

And just exactly how are you going to know if the Dems persuade a lot of people to vote Dem?

jerwin · 2006-10-31 1:05 pm

exit polling?

resedit · 2006-10-31 1:10 pm

jerwin wrote:
exit polling?

You know - not once have I ever been at a place where there was exit polling being done.

Seems to me that if you don't "exit pole" everywhere, your "exit poles" have opportunity for bias.
Also seems to me that some people may vote one way in private, and say they voted another when asked in public.

resedit · 2006-10-31 1:16 pm

btw, I'm just sayin', if I was a crooked republican strategist - 2006 is not when I would pull a fraud.
The dems aren't going to get enough power to overturn a veto on a partisan issue.

2008 is the year for fraud.

Farmerkev · 2006-10-31 1:28 pm

jerwin wrote:
exit polling?

I actually had that at my polling place once.
Told the chickie to stick it, she'd know how I voted when they counted them.
I don't know how accurate polling is anymore truthfully. I'm starting to think getting a true representative sample, with certain demographics refusing to answer unknown caller or just sick of polls for example, might be nearly impossible.

bratboy · 2006-10-31 1:37 pm

resedit wrote:
btw, I'm just sayin', if I was a crooked republican strategist - 2006 is not when I would pull a fraud.

The amount of money that they're dumping into the Senate races in order to preserve a one-vote majority (or a tie) says that this one is being viewed as incredibly important.

I think the White House is worried about investigations related to Iraq.

Steyr AUG · 2006-10-31 1:58 pm

Farmerkev wrote:
jerwin wrote:
exit polling?
I actually had that at my polling place once.
Told the chickie to stick it, she'd know how I voted when they counted them.
I don't know how accurate polling is anymore truthfully. I'm starting to think getting a true representative sample, with certain demographics refusing to answer unknown caller or just sick of polls for example, might be nearly impossible.

Poll response rates have been declining for a long time. Its also interesting to wonder with the increasing number of people who have cellphones with no landlines if everyone has a random chance of being polled anymore. Probably not, which spells big problems for political polls and market research.

Oh and its pretty hard to exit poll absentee ballots.

Tetrachloride · 2006-10-31 2:02 pm

I read the other day that if an addititonal 50,000 Democratic votes were strategically placed in the 1994 Contract for America, the Newt Gingrich revolution would not have happened.

resedit · 2006-10-31 2:41 pm

bratboy wrote:
resedit wrote:
btw, I'm just sayin', if I was a crooked republican strategist - 2006 is not when I would pull a fraud.
The amount of money that they're dumping into the Senate races in order to preserve a one-vote majority (or a tie) says that this one is being viewed as incredibly important.

Sure. That's legitimate campaign. You pull fraud in 2006 and it is a lot harder to do it again in 2008.
Pull fraud in 2006, get it investigated in 2008 under a dem president and senate, and the party is over.

You spend in 2006 and there's nothing stopping you from spending again in 2008.

I think the White House is worried about investigations related to Iraq.

I really don't think so.
I think that certain people want to believe that the white house is evil so strongly that they have convinced themselves the white house is worried about such things. I don't think that is the case in the slightest. Bush and the white house have nothing to worry about as far as "investigations" are concerned.

You may not like how it was handled, but it was not criminal.

Last edited by resedit (2006-10-31 2:41 pm)

Freakout Jackson · 2006-10-31 2:44 pm

resedit wrote:
bratboy wrote:
resedit wrote:
btw, I'm just sayin', if I was a crooked republican strategist - 2006 is not when I would pull a fraud.
The amount of money that they're dumping into the Senate races in order to preserve a one-vote majority (or a tie) says that this one is being viewed as incredibly important.
Sure. That's legitimate campaign. You pull fraud in 2006 and it is a lot harder to do it again in 2008.
Pull fraud in 2006, get it investigated in 2008 under a dem president and senate, and the party is over.

You spend in 2006 and there's nothing stopping you from spending again in 2008.

I think the White House is worried about investigations related to Iraq.
I really don't think so.
I think that certain people want to believe that the white house is evil so strongly that they have convinced themselves the white house is worried about such things. I don't think that is the case in the slightest. Bush and the white house have nothing to worry about as far as "investigations" are concerned.

You may not like how it was handled, but it was not criminal.

Wow man. Watching you slip further and further into denial over the years is frickin amazing.

resedit · 2006-10-31 2:47 pm

btw, if I was the president and my administration had done something illegal w/ respect to Iraq, I'd rather have the investigation now so I could pardon at the end of my term and cover my own ass than to have the investigation happen later when I no longer have the pardon authority.

Forums | MacLife

#1 2006-10-30 11:15 pm

2006 election hijinks allegations, and also "push polls"

#2 2006-10-30 11:55 pm

Re: 2006 election hijinks allegations, and also "push polls"

#3 2006-10-31 3:52 am

Re: 2006 election hijinks allegations, and also "push polls"

#4 2006-10-31 6:42 am

Re: 2006 election hijinks allegations, and also "push polls"

#5 2006-10-31 8:42 am

Re: 2006 election hijinks allegations, and also "push polls"

Farmerkev wrote:

#6 2006-10-31 8:54 am

Re: 2006 election hijinks allegations, and also "push polls"

bratboy wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

#7 2006-10-31 9:55 am

Re: 2006 election hijinks allegations, and also "push polls"

Farmerkev wrote:

#8 2006-10-31 10:33 am

Re: 2006 election hijinks allegations, and also "push polls"

Farmerkev wrote:

bratboy wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

#9 2006-10-31 11:39 am

Re: 2006 election hijinks allegations, and also "push polls"

Farmerkev wrote:

bratboy wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

#10 2006-10-31 12:15 pm

Re: 2006 election hijinks allegations, and also "push polls"

#11 2006-10-31 12:21 pm

Re: 2006 election hijinks allegations, and also "push polls"

isaly wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

bratboy wrote:

#12 2006-10-31 12:22 pm

Re: 2006 election hijinks allegations, and also "push polls"

#13 2006-10-31 12:26 pm

Re: 2006 election hijinks allegations, and also "push polls"

#14 2006-10-31 12:39 pm

Re: 2006 election hijinks allegations, and also "push polls"

bratboy wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

#15 2006-10-31 12:58 pm

Re: 2006 election hijinks allegations, and also "push polls"

#16 2006-10-31 1:05 pm

Re: 2006 election hijinks allegations, and also "push polls"

#17 2006-10-31 1:10 pm

Re: 2006 election hijinks allegations, and also "push polls"

jerwin wrote:

#18 2006-10-31 1:16 pm

Re: 2006 election hijinks allegations, and also "push polls"

#19 2006-10-31 1:28 pm

Re: 2006 election hijinks allegations, and also "push polls"

jerwin wrote:

#20 2006-10-31 1:37 pm

Re: 2006 election hijinks allegations, and also "push polls"

resedit wrote:

#21 2006-10-31 1:58 pm

Re: 2006 election hijinks allegations, and also "push polls"

Farmerkev wrote:

jerwin wrote:

#22 2006-10-31 2:02 pm

Re: 2006 election hijinks allegations, and also "push polls"

#23 2006-10-31 2:41 pm

Re: 2006 election hijinks allegations, and also "push polls"

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

#24 2006-10-31 2:44 pm

Re: 2006 election hijinks allegations, and also "push polls"

resedit wrote:

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

#25 2006-10-31 2:47 pm

Re: 2006 election hijinks allegations, and also "push polls"

Board footer