Maybe this election was another Diebold job after all?

[Katzenjammer]

Consider: the GOP is officially off the hook, yet they have complete control via Lieberlouse. The Dems are "in power", but can't do anything that would require overriding a veto, and can lose the Senate any time Lieberlouse chooses.

Sounds like a remarkably good deal for the GOP, doesn't it?

Or at least for the people who pull the strings behind both Business Party fronts.

No?

[WilliamPitt]

1. No

[KingFlorez]

2. Ooookay

You're really reaching here.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

3. wow...

Diebolded if you win...Diebolded if you lose...

Would Diebold have been to blame if it rained on election day?

Good grief...

sP

[Stevepol]

11. Diebold is to blame when there are obvious discrepancies

for which there are probably no other logical causes. This happened in almost all places during the election. In fact, the pollsters have begun to expand the "Democratic bias" that they feel shows up in polls, evidently because (pollsters now claim), in the exit polls, Dems answer with greater frequency than Repubs. As a matter of fact, as Steven Freeman showed in his book, there's no reason to believe this. The only reason Mitofsky came up with this lame cause for such discrepancies was to try to explain the country-wide discrepancy (in 10-15 states beyond the margin of error) between the exit polls and the alleged election results in 04.

Dems had better use their current majorities to pass laws making sure there's a paper trail AND AUDITS FOR EVERY ELECTION. If this election had not been such a huge landslide, Dems wouldn't have come close to winning. The machines added probably between 4-8% to the Repub results depending on where the elections took place (or subtracted it from the Dems, however you look at it).

Once the paper starts being used AND COUNTED IN AUDITS OR IN THE REAL ELECTION, all this talk of Dem "bias" in polls will suddenly disappear and pol-sci folks will be amazed at first; then, they'll explain it by using some other theory that is equally ludicrous.

The fact is obvious that the machines are padding the results for Repubs and will continue to do so if there are not laws put in place to prevent it.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

20. Sounds like an argument for the existence of God

"Diebold is to blame when there are obvious discrepancies for which there are probably no other logical causes."

For that which there is no explanation...blame God...I mean Diebold.

This thread is evidence that for some here, it just doesn't matter the outcome. You have to make up something to fit your little view of the world. That is indeed disturbing. If there were FACTS involved here then charges would be brought. But you have no facts, only conjecture.

sP

[greyl]

4. Hell no.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=68148

[Ioo]

5. Bush can't veto everything, Dems will paint Repigs as Obstructionists

The dems are going to pass some laws that MOST Americans really want. Bush has saved face by making sure they NEVER come to a vote. A VETO would be the greatest thing the Dems could hope for...

"We tried to do the work for Americans, but the Republicans VETO'ed it"

the word BUSH now equals REPUBLICAN from now on!

[Auggie]

6. I don't buy it.

[trotsky]

7. Having the House, the Dems have LOTS of power.

They can basically nix anything Bush wants by preventing it from even getting to the floor.

Is that a situation favorable to the 'Pukes?

[flowomo]

8. ah, the old "Evil Genius" theory again....

some people just can't shake that "loser" mentality.

[Karenca]

9. No-----That statement is in the same vein as

"Rove fixed the election to let the Dems win and mess up
so we get the presidency in 2008--He's a Genyus!"

We won, and I am sure we would have won by alot more
if there were no Diebold at all.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

10. And that might be a good reason why Allen didn't ask for a recount. eom

[onenote]

15. or maybe allen realized there was no chance

and wanted to keep his powder dry for a run in 2008 without a "sore loser" tag

[jbnow]

29. Allen didn't ask for recount

partly because Virginia's voting machines can't be recounted. There is no trail. The most they could find was some tallying error and that was checked quickly going county to county.

Past recounts have shown very small differences, based on the above. All a recount does is have the computer run the same numbers, nothing else to see.

It would be a perfect system to rig because you could never, ever prove it.

Don't tell anyone but I think they could have tried it in a few key states to keep the Senate, including this one, and just didn't switch enough votes.

[onenote]

12. no. (although posts over in freeper land suggest the same thing)

Not suggesting you're a freeper. Just suggesting its reason enough not to wear that particular tinfoil hat.

[magellan]

13. Election fraud happened this time around

But not for that reason. It just wasn't enough to save the Repugs.

[qnr]

14. How does "No" sound? n/t

[MoonRiver]

16. Nope.

* vetoes, we impeach.

[Katzenjammer]

17. So most of you guys are saying that Dems really aren't that popular?

Because if the election was honest, then that's the implication: Dem policies, Dem goals, Dem politicians are no more popular than GOP ones and that means the 2002 and 2004 elections were straight. And I don't buy that.

(No, you don't get to say that Dem wins are honest and Dem losses are crooked. Not without looking like a total jerk, anyway)

[qnr]

18. Personally, I'm saying that there was enough of a turnout to overcome things, including Diebold n/t

[skids]

37. Yep. They tried. It wasn't enough in most races. n/t

[Warpy]

19. I don't think so

I think they kept that 4% vote flip. I just think too many of us were pissed off for them to keep their majority.

[Sinti]

21. No - gosh no

We won, fair and square. They wouldn't let us win, that's just silly. There was a ton of fraud out there, vote suppression, fake phone calls, machines vote switching - but it wasn't enough.

A lot of people worked their butts off to win this election, and they deserve the credit in a big way :)

[Katzenjammer]

22. So you believe THEY won fair and square in 02 and 04, too? (nt)

[Sinti]

26. No I do not - as I said: " There was a ton of fraud out there

vote suppression, fake phone calls, machines vote switching - but it wasn't enough."

I don't think we can know what the proper counts would have been without these fraudulent activities, this time, in 2000, in '02 or in '04. I think the watchful eyes at the polls and coverage of the possibility of machine tampering certainly helped our cause.

As long as there are machines, and no random audits, I will not believe the system isn't rigged at least in some cases. It's far too easy to do. If it's a computer, it can be hacked. If it's attached to a network, anywhere, it can be hacked remotely. This is an absolute.

[Katzenjammer]

27. That sounds too Freudian to me. I just can't get there from here.

Freud was never wrong. If the evidence supported his interpretation, then he was right. And if it didn't, then he called it a reaction formation and still claimed to be right.

That's what this feels like. If the Dems lose, then we should have won but the GOP dirty tricks did us in. But if Dems win, then it was an honest win -- the GOP tried to screw it up but couldn't. So Dems can never lose!

[Sinti]

32. Actually, I wouldn't suggest that at all. Dems could just as easily

hack those machines as Republicans. It's even possible that they did, in some cases. We can't really know without audits, can we. The voter suppression (caging lists), however, is a Republican tactic in the main. The fake calling, "your polling place has changed" crap is also a Republican scam. Your election process, if done by computer, particularly without random audits for veracity, is Not Safe.

Every computer can be hacked. Every computer on a network can be hacked remotely. You don't have to believe this is true, but lack of belief doesn't change the fact. Disbelief in gravity doesn't make a rock not fall to the ground either.

[Katzenjammer]

33. I'm aware that all computers can be hacked, if not firewalled.

I'm pretty technical. What I'm trying to point out here is that it's just as easy to steal 20% of the votes as 2%. So why didn't they do it? When I ask myself that, and look at the fact that they're now off the hook for BushCo's crimes, it makes sense. The Dems are "in charge" but can't do anything the GOP doesn't want to let them do. And when BushCo wants the GOP to help him flush the US completely down the toilet, they can shrug and say "no mas". What's not to like about that position?

[slackmaster]

23. Since no past "Diebold job" has ever been proved, the answer is "No".

:nuke:

[leftofthedial]

24. this WAS a "Diebold job"

they just weren't close enough to make a difference

[seabeyond]

25. no

[wyldwolf]

28. Damn! I thought this was it!

I've been waiting for a crackpot theory that Diebold helped Centrists Dems win and thought this was it.

Still, this is a kneeslapper anyway! LOL!

[Kelly Rupert]

30. If the Republicans wanted to lose the election,

there are far cheaper ways of going about it.

[helderheid]

31. We'll never know and THAT is the problem. GET RID of the MACHINES!

[slackmaster]

36. The ones we used in California are auditable

I don't see a problem using a computing device for data entry, but the actual ballot of record should be a piece of paper.

A computer can do a better job of preparing a scannable, human-readable paper ballot than a person can.

[ronnykmarshall]

34. Uhhhmmmmmm ......uhhh...... hmmmm ... let me think about that.

Oh ok ......... can I have a hit of that joint you're smoking? :smoke: :smoke:

[joe_sixpack]

35. Wow

it's only been 12 years. Why are we freaking out so much when we won? Enjoy it, don't look for ways to diminish the accomplishment.

[survivor999]

38. Maybe it was Jeebus. or the anti-Jeebus.