Suggestion : Stealing 2000/2004 wasn't about the GOP, it was about Bush

[rpgamerd00d]

The reason the 2006 elections weren't stolen has nothing to do with 2000 and 2004.

I think the mistake some people here are making, is that they are assuming that because we won in 2006, that the machines aren't rigged.

That is not true. They are rigged.

But the riggers had no reason to use their backdoors. Because Bush wasn't running for office again.

My theory, is that the riggers didn't manipulate 2000 and 2004 simply for Republicans in general. They did it specifically for Bush. They are friends of Bush. Now that Bush isn't running anymore, they have no need to take the risk of rigging 2006. They will now sit on the rigging software and simply wait until such time as they have another friend running, and then rig it for them. Rigging for the entire GOP in 2006 wasn't in their own interests, so they simply didn't do it. It had the added bonus of making people think they really aren't rigged after all.

This explaination, while unprovable, makes the most sense to me.
Feel free to discuss.

[AndyA]

1. The Dems just need to make damn sure we get paper trails, mandatory

spot audits, and other processes in place to prevent tampering or theft ever again. EVER. It stops NOW. Take the power away from them, and it won't matter who has friends in high places, because everyone will be held to the same standards, and that's the way it should be.

And while the Dems are at it, private money for campaigns should be prohibited. We need publicly financed campaigns, so the best person for the seat always has an equal chance of winning it.

[radwriter0555]

2. Well and this was a good time to let the power shift to the dems to clean up the

horrific messes they've made. It's a good payoff for them in the long run because these messes are nearly IMPOSSIBLE to clean up and the democ can take the blame for it.. it's a whole cyclical thing, I suppose. Just a thought.

[Squeech]

3. Dunno

I agree that BushCo is a criminal conspiracy lurking within the Republican Party.

I disagree that this year's elections weren't rigged. I think the rigging has to be subtle to work, however, and I think the anti-war, anti-corruption, anti-imperial-arrogance sentiment was too steep for rigging for complete victory to be credible this year. I think they did do it at the margins, like it was designed to be. See FL-13.

I note that Katherine Harris was convinced, in the face of overwhelmingly dismal poll numbers, that she was going to get elected anyway. I think this shows that she didn't understand the scheme either and assumed they could just rig her a victory out of thin air.

[no_hypocrisy]

4. Not necessarily.

Rove had it on record that he wanted a repubican majority for at least 40 years and had plans to destroy the democratic base (unions, the middle class, trial lawyers, etc.) as well as make sure his base beat their base.

I can't entirely buy the idea that "they let us have this one".

[reichstag911]

5. But then again, for the statisticians out there,...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2775205

[bullimiami]

6. i think you are wrong. the last off year election was rigged as was this one.

i think circumstances overwhelmed their scheme.

there has already been analysis of the exit polling in this election that concluded they they skimmed in the neighborhood of 4% of the votes. this was sucessful in some races and not in others. the conclusion was also that democrats in a fair election could have taken perhaps 65 seats in the house. i think they either did not or could not modify their schemes to account for the collapse their numbers took in the final month or so.

i think they rigged not just for bush but for bush and his support group and this still held true for the next 2 years.

i still believe the highest priority needs to be to create a secure and honest voting system nationwide for all races.

[insane_cratic_gal]

7. See I think they tried to steal 2006 too

that's where you are wrong, problem is the margin of those who voted democratic couldn't defeat the margin they were hoping to get to flip it. But if you look at the majority of polls people were unhappy with republican party (83 percent were unhappy with the Senate and congress! you can't fudge numbers like that)

And if they did screw the results on a larger scale, then people would be screaming election fraud, and rioting in the streets would be imminent. The media had already started to cover evoting, had they fudge the margin of error yet again they wouldn't be able to steal 2008.

Why do you think part of the agenda of the Democratic House is to cover the issue of election fraud? We tried in 2004 to cover it, they refused to let us even address it.