ELECTION NIGHT

Post by **Dardedar** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 10:37 pm

Rove really did think they were going to win:

From mediamatters.org

***
"The Math" gets a "Thumping"

Lets put to rest right now the notion that any reporter should ever again put any stock in anything Karl Rove says (we'll set aside, for now, the question of whether they should have done so for the past six years.)

During an October 24 appearance on NPR's All Things Considered, Rove insisted that Republicans would retain control of both the House and the Senate. Challenged by the host about polling that indicated a looming disaster for Republicans, Rove insisted "I'm looking at 68 polls a week. You may be looking at four or five public polls a week that talk about attitudes nationally but that do not impact the outcome ... I'm looking at all these, Robert, and adding them up, and I add up to a Republican Senate and a Republican House. You may end up with a different math, but you're entitled to your math, I'm entitled to the math."

Obviously, the math worked out a little differently, giving Republicans what President Bush described as a "thumpin'."

Post by **Dardedar** » Sun Nov 12, 2006 8:14 am

.
.
.

Post by **Dardedar** » Sun Nov 12, 2006 8:31 am

Amazing coincidence.

In 2000, Joe Lieberman's Republican challenger, Phil Giordano, received 448,077 votes.

In 2006, Joe Lieberman's Democratic challenger, Ned Lamont, received 448,077 votes.

If you have enough raw data/information to comb through, some amazing coincidences will pop up.

Doug · Post by **Doug** » Sun Nov 12, 2006 12:43 pm

Darrel wrote:Amazing coincidence.

In 2000, Joe Lieberman's Republican challenger, Phil Giordano, received 448,077 votes.

In 2006, Joe Lieberman's Democratic challenger, Ned Lamont, received 448,077 votes.

If you have enough raw data/information to comb through, some amazing coincidences will pop up.

DOUG
Such as that Lieberman's people decided to stack the votes in the same numbers?

Post by **Dardedar** » Sun Nov 12, 2006 4:08 pm

I thought of that, but if they were smart enough to hack the vote, wouldn't they be smart enough to change the numbers slighty? Or maybe they just did this to throw us off because it would be so obvious.... hmmmm...

They're so smart, so sneaky. How smart? Let me give you an idea. Plato? Aristole? Morons!

Doug · Post by **Doug** » Sun Nov 12, 2006 6:07 pm

Darrel wrote:I thought of that, but if they were smart enough to hack the vote, wouldn't they be smart enough to change the numbers slighty? Or maybe they just did this to throw us off because it would be so obvious.... hmmmm...

They're so smart, so sneaky. How smart? Let me give you an idea. Plato? Aristole? Morons!

DOUG
People who like Bush smart? Not likely.

There were many voting "irregularities."

=
“We have compiled literally dozens of pages of complaints and concerns,” said county Democratic Party Chairman Jess Durfee. “It's definitely more than we've had in the last couple elections.”

Haas said he didn't know how widespread the problems were.

“We haven't had a chance to focus on that yet,” he said.

“We did maintain records of types of calls that came in, types of problems we had to encounter,” Haas said. Some were due to poll worker errors, such as plugging the electronic units into outlets that didn't work, he said. In other cases, the machines malfunctioned.

“We will be sitting down and doing a critical analysis,” he said.

Durfee said he stands by his election night call for Haas' resignation. He also called for the Board of Supervisors to be held accountable for the voting problems.

Yesterday Haas declined to respond to Durfee's request for his resignation. Among the supervisors, Greg Cox declined comment and Ron Roberts was out of the country and unavailable. The other three didn't return calls.

Problems such as those experienced in San Diego County were common nationwide, as many states grappled with electronic voting machines for the first time.

==========
See here.

Post by **Dardedar** » Sun Nov 12, 2006 6:57 pm

Bush says we should be thankful the election wasn't cancelled, considering we are at war and all:

From yesterday’s presidential radio address:

"One freedom that defines our way of life is the freedom to choose our leaders at the ballot box. We saw that freedom earlier this week, when millions of Americans went to the polls to cast their votes for a new Congress. Whatever your opinion of the outcome, all Americans can take pride in the example our democracy sets for the world by holding elections even in a time of war.” G.W. Bush

We should be “proud” that the federal government didn’t cancel our elections? That the Bush administration didn’t use the war as an excuse to interrupt the democratic process?
The Carpet Bagger

Post by **Dardedar** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 2:12 am

Barbara Fitzpatrick · Mon Nov 13, 2006 12:09 pm

I'd say Bush was reminding people - and maybe he shouldn't have because we now have the possibility of removing that power - that he has the power to delay elections. It's in the Patriot Act. Right now we do not live in a free country. Our consitutional rights have legislatively been reduced to privileges that can be waived at presidential whim. He can "delay" elections, order the disappearing of anybody he decides is "aiding the enemy" - no habeas corpus, no due process - you don't know what for, can't get a lawyer, can't defend yourself, can't see the evidence or witnesses against you, no protection from confession by torture, may never even see the court - and can use the military to "put down" assemblies that he decides aren't peaceable. Until these laws are revoked or repealed, we live under a dictator. Whether he uses the powers is moot - he has them and we don't have rights anymore.