Isn't There One Major Problem with the GOP Trying to Steal the Election

[Doctor Jack]

Lets say 2000, the dems were caught my surprise and in 2004, they were powerless and couldn't do anything about fraud. But in 2012, is the major problem with the republicans trying to actually steal the election, by which I mean fucking with the voting machines, is that they will be trying to steal it from the incumbent president? Wouldn't a major flaw be that Obama has the entire investigative power of the federal government at his disposal? The Attorney General has vast powers to go after anyone that he suspects stole an election and Obama would still be in office for months after the election. This slime ball SOS in Ohio would be going up against the most powerful investigative force in the country. The Justice Department could probably find evidence of vote rigging in a few hours if they wanted to and from what I have seen of Obama and Holder in the past 4 years, they do not fuck around. Would they really sit by and let some low level state republicans steal the election from them?

Again, this isn't 2000, when no one expected fraud and this isn't 2004, when the democrats had zero power in any level of the federal government. They have the entire Executive Branch and the Senate. Wouldn't Obama, Holder, and Reid come down on anyone that tried to steal this election with the wrath of God?

[pnwmom]

1. The President wouldn't have that power for long, and then President Romney could

dump the whole investigation.

[highprincipleswork]

2. Nice Thought

Nice thought.

Let's hope it's true, and that "they" think so too.

I'd really like to think this is true, and this is a very, very nice distinction to make.

Thank you.

[FarewellAddress]

3. Yeah that all holds up.

If these guys were going to steal the election, they'd totally stop them, right?
What's more, they'd probably know way before it even happened, what with their massive 6 year ground game and political head start.
I mean for the other guys to get even close to stealing it the other guys would have to be somehow coordinating with forces within the campaign but why would anybody do that?
Would someone really wreck a country just for four more years of political fundraising, for the soul purpose of regaining the political momentum and democratic will to push a more progressive agenda? Would anyone really gamble with two non-consecutive terms?
Then again, it's "49-49" so far as we know, and if this Romney guy screws up bad enough...which is to say, if you can convince him screwing up bad enough will be in his best interest...

Jinkies...

[left on green only]

6. The R man is an ego maniac......

.....he will say or do anything to gain that which his ego has fixated upon. He has no shame, he has no morals, and he has no conscience. The fact that in the light of all of the polls that would "prove" otherwise, he keeps extolling with confidence that he will be the victor, causes me to be suspicious of every move that he and his minions make.

He and the cult to which he belongs believe that he is meant to be the modern day messiah of this planet. In his mind, any means necessary to make that happen are justified. He is one scary, psychotic, mother fucker.

Upon edit to tone it down - just kidding

[Drunken Irishman]

4. If Romney was going to steal Ohio, he'd not be campaigning there...

It would be irrelevant. He could play it off as having Ohio in the bag, exuding confidence and spending the last few hours in Colorado, New Hampshire, Virginia and Florida ... states that he needs. Remember, even without Ohio, Obama can still win 270 - so, even winning Ohio for Romney is no guarantee for him to win the election ... especially if they lose Virginia or Florida or North Carolina.

So, let's say Romney knows they're going to steal Ohio and that he's got it in the bag no matter what ... why not focus more on states you definitely need, even with Ohio? But the fact he's campaigning there ... and is still there ... tells me they're worried shitless the state is going to go Obama.

[fasttense]

9. That's NOT how people cheat.

I use to do investigations on people who were caught cheating. These were numbers that could be manipulated with computers and the better the numbers the better one's career went.

It was my job to investigate those people suspected of rigging their numbers.

When someone cheats they don't stop working. They don't stop doing everything possible to still win even if they have rigged the numbers. The reasons are many. They want it to look like they are NOT cheating. Imagine someone doing well and NOT looking like they put in some amount of effort. They hedge their bets. If the manipulation gets overwhelmed by the real numbers (they didn't change the numbers enough), hard work will pad their numbers. Most are in competition with someone else. The other guy may still get bigger numbers than the rigged ones the cheater put into the system, so the cheater still has to work.

I never understood your line of argument. These cheaters will do anything to win, even cheat. But you expect them to stop working once they have chosen to cheat?

[Drunken Irishman]

10. You don't understand it because you're misinterpreting it.

Romney isn't guaranteed squat even if he wins Ohio. Yes, it bolsters his chances considerably, but he could still lose this election if Obama carried every state Kerry won in '04 and flipped New Mexico (where he's got a sizable lead), Nevada (where Romney is losing badly in early voting) and Colorado (where recent polls show Obama leading). Stealing Ohio is only half the equation for Romney. If he steals Ohio ... it means jack if he can't flip another state that Obama won in '08 (and not just Virginia, Florida, North Carolina). He'd have to win New Hampshire or Colorado or flip Iowa/Wisconsin/Pennsylvania.

My point, if Romney was really truly going to steal Ohio, he would double down on states he needs to win to keep his chances alive. He can't just win Ohio. So, if he had it in the bag, why would he risk campaigning there, focusing most his attention there, instead of campaigning hard in Colorado, which could decide the election? Or campaign in Wisconsin ... or even campaign more in Pennsylvania?

That doesn't even begin to get into Virginia and Florida ... states that are too close to call and ones he needs to win. He can win Ohio, but it's all moot if he loses Virginia because there's only a five electoral vote difference. If he had Ohio in the bag, he'd be shoring up the other states he needs to win because winning just Ohio doesn't mean squat if he can't close the deal in Colorado or Virginia or Florida.

[KaryninMiami]

11. But if they skim 2-3% in swing states

From the machines, not enough so it's glaringly obvious- and the difference between them pre election is 2-3 points, they win. And that's how they stole it from Kerry and I am pretty sure that's what they are counting on again. If we have a landslide turnout or the difference is more then a 1-3 point spread, we can overcompensate and then we win. What's really maddening is that a recount or manual hand count will not happen if Romney wins by more than 2 points which is very possible with the rigging in close races.

Romney will loose Ohio and elsewhere if the spread is 5 or more points but between rigged machines and massive disenfranchisement they can easily win the other close swing states.

Final tabulations last time comparing exit polls to results showed Obama should have won with a 2-3% higher margin- so it was clear that they tried but the turnout was too high to overcome.

If the exit polls tomorrow do not match the results, we will know it was tampered with but sadly, if Obama concedes early (which I don't believe he will- hopefully Kerry advised him as did others), we will never have an opportunity to finally end this madness and create a verifiable voting process here. At least this time, we have more attention on this from the media. But I am still very worried. They are desperate and will stop at nothing.

[msongs]

5. holder??? is he still around??? nt

[AverageJoe90]

7. Yep. It's not likely they'd be able to pull off a win now even with full-blown suppression.......

But on the off chance it does work we could have a hell of a major fight on our hands.

[graham4anything]

8. there won't be no theft in 2012. Obama wins because obama is great...and...

the theft machine worked for the bush/'s....they ain't running. no theft to occur.
now, 2016 when it's Jeb/Christie vs. Hillary, we must be vigiliant
because the architects and benefactors of the theft machine will be running one of their own

campaign 2014 and 2016 starts now in 2 days. NO REST because THEY won't be resting.