Forums | MacLife

bratboy wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Do you honestly not get a different impression this time?

I think many still believe there are very serious problems with the process that need to be addressed.

If your standard is simply "discussions on the internet," then obviously you're setting the bar quite low.  People claim any number of things.  You'll get more than a few links accusing Democrats of election fraud in the 2004 election. 

Are we in agreement that good faith concerns about the fairness of elections should be discussed?

My standard is people everywhere from miniscule minithink to the major media outlets to the politicians on both sides themselves.
I'm not seeing it anywhere. (other than the occasional half hearted bitch about the voting machines)

Farmerkev wrote:

bratboy wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Do you honestly not get a different impression this time?

I think many still believe there are very serious problems with the process that need to be addressed.

If your standard is simply "discussions on the internet," then obviously you're setting the bar quite low.  People claim any number of things.  You'll get more than a few links accusing Democrats of election fraud in the 2004 election. 

Are we in agreement that good faith concerns about the fairness of elections should be discussed?

My standard is people everywhere from miniscule minithink to the major media outlets to the politicians on both sides themselves.
I'm not seeing it anywhere. (other than the occasional half hearted bitch about the voting machines)

And which of those groups complained before?  If you don't want to back up a claim, please don't make it in the first place, especially vague all inclusive claims.

Also this time (unlike 00 & 04) the results are lining up with the exit polls as they should.

Freakout Jackson wrote:

Also this time (unlike 00 & 04) the results are lining up with the exit polls as they should.

Actually - they had a statitician on the news (I think it was CNN) explaining why the exit polls in 2000 and 2004 were biased towards the left by a margin much higher than "margin of error" - I believe it was around 6% bias towards the left.

The reason - the locations for the exit polls were poorly chosen, and were done primarily in areas with a democrat base.

But I'm sure you people don't want to hear that, I mean, by page 10 of high schook statistics - you know that sample size is all that matters. And once you reach a certain sample size, you are good to go.

Last edited by resedit (2006-11-09 4:51 pm)

Pariah wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Perhaps I should list my voting scorecard.
In this election I voted for 6 Dems and 3 Reps.

Yet you still use the shriek machines characterization that if someone feels wronged and speaks up about it they are a whiner and a crier. This position, completely contradicted by the facts in evidence, that the Florida vote problem was a complete fabrication by the left has become way more than tedious.

OK, let's play.
You all seem to think I was making some partisan comment when I was expressing pleasant surprise at the aftermath.

:: put's on partisan smurf hat ::


So why didn't the Republicans steal this election this time?
Must not have been anything at stake in this election huh.
smurf man, they have ALL the power and STOLE the last several.
The OWNER of DIEBOLD even declared  PUBLICLY that he would deliver.
Or would the reality really be Republicans aren't childish little people like the Dems that can't accept a loss and have to blame someone else because heaven knows their smurf don't stink. No red marks on their report cards no sir. They got an A for effort and because they tried. That makes you a winner in liberal land don't you know.
You smurfing liberals can't even be happy when you win big and have to find something to argue about.
How about this.
Republicans lost because they WANTED to lose.
It's all going to hell in a handcart and you dumbasses will be the ones in power left holding the bag!!!!!!!!
It was all a PLOT!!!!!!!



:: takes off hat::

That boys and girls is a partisan statement.
Learn the smurfing difference.

Farmerkev wrote:

OK, let's play.
You all seem to think I was making some partisan comment when I was expressing pleasant surprise at the aftermath.

Honest question:  Was that an unreasonable inference to draw from these posts...that you were making a "partisan" comment?

Farmerkev wrote:

I did notice that all the cries of voter fraud died and there aren't Reps running around screaming for a recount.

Farmerkev wrote:

I'm saying I notice that the losers this time are not crying fraud and screaming for recounts.
They congratulated the winner and walked off the stage.
That is different than many instances in the last several elections.
Do you disagree?

I apologize if I misread your intent.

bratboy wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

OK, let's play.
You all seem to think I was making some partisan comment when I was expressing pleasant surprise at the aftermath.

Honest question:  Was that an unreasonable inference to draw from these posts...that you were making a "partisan" comment?

Farmerkev wrote:

I did notice that all the cries of voter fraud died and there aren't Reps running around screaming for a recount.

Farmerkev wrote:

I'm saying I notice that the losers this time are not crying fraud and screaming for recounts.
They congratulated the winner and walked off the stage.
That is different than many instances in the last several elections.
Do you disagree?

I apologize if I misread your intent.

Well gee, the Reps got their ass handed to them big time so yeah, instead of the Dems losing it would be the Reps this time trying to discredit the results and crying fraud now wouldn't it. I can't help that. They aren't doing it. We seem to have everyone on the same page and nobody claiming they got cheated and we need foreign election monitors like some 3rd world smurf. That was embarrassing as hell to me.
You know I don't like Bush or the neo-cons and didn't vote for them in the last election. Why would I be sad they lost?
You know I'm socially pretty "liberal" although to me it's just fairness and old fashioned values. You might not like how the neighbor farms but you keep your mouth shut about it, it's a free country and his ground to do how he wants. I call that conservative, you guys don't. Different upbringings perhaps.
Yeah, I label myself as conservative, those guys aren't.
I was happy with the election results till this thread.
Now I'm having second thoughts.

Metacell wrote:

I think Kev's right.  Maybe for the first time (EDIT: not him being right, but me thinking him being right).  I also think there was less basis to suspect voter fraud this time because people are being much more cautious.  I don't think previous claims were unwarrented.

I honestly think those earlier instances were simply the inefficiency of your typical govt operation. (remember, conservative, the solution isn't govt, the problem is)
I really don't think the Reps stole any election, it was just smurf happening. While some were fond of pointing out it was happening in "typically strong" Dem areas they failed to mention just how many of those Dem strongholds were run by Dems. (duh, kinda makes sense doesn't it) I think there are other reasons the same places keep having problems but that's another subject.
We had plenty of places this time too with problems, hell we always do.
Bratty's right that legitimate problems need to be fixed and we aren't there yet. I kinda doubt we'll get there too but it's a good goal to work toward.

Freakout Jackson wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

So why didn't the Republicans steal this election this time?

Trying to steal it when the margin of victory was so clear this time would have stuck out like a sore thumb when all pre-election polls showed the republicans were going to get trounced.

Yeah - I mean, it's not like anyone was worried about what Kerry said last minute. It's not like anybody started threads asking what would happen if the repubs held on to the senate or anything.

But I agree - if they are going to steal an election, '08 is a better time to do it.
Veto power of the president takes a signifigant majority to over ride. Bush can veto stuff and effectively stop stuff the repubs don't want to pass. If they lose the white house in '08 - that's no longer possible.

Maybe people just know how honest Democrats are, and know they would be lying if they alleged fraud

Farmerkev wrote:

Freakout Jackson wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

So why didn't the Republicans steal this election this time?

Trying to steal it when the margin of victory was so clear this time would have stuck out like a sore thumb when all pre-election polls showed the republicans were going to get trounced. In 00 & 04 everyone knew the margins were going to be razor thin, it therefore would take very little in the way of cheating to sway the whole thing.

Learn the smurfing difference.

Do you know how many were by a very very small margin?
Easily within the cheat range and the margin of error of the polls.

Absolutely right. What was the margin in Virginia? 7000 votes? A few hundred votes in a few prescincts, being careful to keep it within the range of the margin for error of exit polling.

If 2000 and 2004 were stolen without a hitch, this one would've been way easier. Lord knows the administration can't run a war, manage a domestic natural disaster, cover up corruption, handle the budget or even utter a coherent frigging sentence, but stealing elections takes no competence at all!

They didn't want an honest recount in Florida. They wanted a recount only in certain counties.

Question. Under Florida law, in 2000, who was financially responsible for the recount? And would a selective recount have been substantially cheaper than a statewide recount?