My prediction for today's US Midterm elections

[anastrophe]

If republicans retain control of congress, there will be widespread allegations of vote fraud, with months/years of congressional investigations by the democrats, and all the usual blogospheric suspects raising a relentless hue and cry that the only way it could have happened - since all pre-election polls suggest democrats will gain seats - is due to Diebold et al fraud in the election.



If democrats take control of congress, it will be declared a fair and impartial election in the popular press, and the voter fraud allegations will never come up. or at best, there will be some token lipservice to it in the popular press, but it will soon be forgotten.



if democrats gain seats in congress, but do not retake control, the allegations will still be made - but only in those races where democrats lost.



this should give anyone pause to reflect on why voter fraud would be assumed if republicans win, but not if democrats win. fraudulent allegations of fraud are as troubling to me as the potential fraud itself.



we'll know by tomorrow morning!

[chonsigirl]

In Maryland our voting was done by computers, and the glitches were already in force when I arrived by 8:00 am.

No ID to vote-just say your name, and go on in! How did they know who I was?

First computer card-invalid, it was someone else's votes! What if I hadn't caught that? They acted like it was no big deal, I made sure they took that person's card over to be tabulated!

Not an easy system for touch screen voting. I can see numerous controversies being brought up.

New computer system for counting the votes doesn't have me feel very safe about it.

[spot]

anastrophe;452533 wrote: fraudulent allegations of fraud are as troubling to me as the potential fraud itself.Interested observers will find http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Unite ... g_machines a reasonable starting point.

When today's totals are statistically analysed, I'll add another URL and discuss the implications.

"The potential fraud itself" should, of course, worry any reasonable person far more than any allegation, fraudulent or otherwise.

[zinkyusa]

Things went smoothly at our polling locations. We had new computerized touch screen voting machines which I found very easy to use. They really helped keep the line down. I do have concerns over security, audit trail, and paper backups if the machines go south. I am not worried about a conspiracy to defraud voters as much as "glitches" due to new equipment, and possible programming and human error.

[spot]

zinkyusa;452622 wrote: I do have concerns over security, and audit trail of paper backups if the machines go south.And did you produce a paper trail that you could look at for confirmation before leaving the booth?

[Marie5656]

NY was supposed to have new voting booths in place for this election. But they were not ready in time to get to all polling places.

[zinkyusa]

spot;452648 wrote: And did you produce a paper trail that you could look at for confirmation before leaving the booth?


No, there was no option for that. I'm not even sure they have one at all. Definetly a concern.

[Adam Zapple]

Allegations of fraud opened with the polls this morning. Anastrophe is right, it is a typical Democratic tactic. They will claim voter fraud regardless of whether they win or not. And I've seen no evidence to suggest that electronic voting is any more suceptible to fraud than hand ballots. Cheaters can cheat regardless of the medium. Just see Chicago during the 1960 Presidential election.

Btw, I voted for some state constitutional amendments and three candidate races today - House of Representatives, mayor, and city council. I voted for two Democrats and one Republican. Only one race had an incumbent running and I voted for the Republican challenger to the Republican incumbent. So if you haven't voted, what you waiting for?:D

[zinkyusa]

Adam Zapple;452661 wrote: Allegations of fraud opened with the polls this morning. Anastrophe is right, it is a typical Democratic tactic. They will claim voter fraud regardless of whether they win or not. And I've seen no evidence to suggest that electronic voting is any more suceptible to fraud than hand ballots. Cheaters can cheat regardless of the medium. Just see Chicago during the 1960 Presidential election.

Btw, I voted for some state constitutional amendments and three candidate races today - House of Representatives, mayor, and city council. I voted for two Democrats and one Republican. Only one race had an incumbent running and I voted for the Republican challenger to the Republican incumbent. So if you haven't voted, what you waiting for?:D


I think it's more a tactic of losers than any party affilitiation..I agree cheaters will find a way to cheat.

[Adam Zapple]

zinkyusa;452663 wrote: I think it's more a tactic of losers than any party affilitiation..I agree cheaters will find a way to cheat.


You may be right. Just took a trip up to the convenience store and had talk radio on (Hannity)and he was listing voting "problems" being alleged by Republican voters. I posted some about this group on another forum, but if you are interested look up some of the shenanigans by a group that goes by the moniker ACORN.

[anastrophe]

Adam Zapple;452661 wrote: Allegations of fraud opened with the polls this morning. Anastrophe is right, it is a typical Democratic tactic. They will claim voter fraud regardless of whether they win or not. And I've seen no evidence to suggest that electronic voting is any more suceptible to fraud than hand ballots. Cheaters can cheat regardless of the medium. Just see Chicago during the 1960 Presidential election.




actually, i think the greater concern is not whether it's easier or harder to defraud an election, but whether it can be done so in such a manner that all question of fraud can be obfuscated to begin with. a machine that certifies the vote based on assorted locking mechanism, but where the software itself can be manipulated, is of great concern. a video was posted on youtube of an HBO show about the diebold voting machines, and it's very troubling. they hired a guy to hack the 'smartcard' brains. they videotaped eight people placing "votes" - "i believe the diebold voting machine will produce an accurate result" and "i do not believe the diebold voting machine will produce an accurate vote. six voted for "i believe", two voted for "i do not believe". the software registered an accurate total count of votes - but the results were 7 "i believe" and 1 "i do not believe".



the card was tricked to state that it had not been tampered with. so a fraudulent vote could be recorded, and for all anyone would know, it was not fraudulent.



the question is - are democrats more likely to tamper with the smartcards than republicans? and considering the country is fairly evenly divided between democrats and republicans, if both sides tamper, isn't there about an even chance any tampering by one side would cancel out the tampering by the other?

[zinkyusa]

by anastrophe

the question is - are democrats more likely to tamper with the smartcards than republicans? and considering the country is fairly evenly divided between democrats and republicans, if both sides tamper, isn't there about an even chance any tampering by one side would cancel out the tampering by the other?


:yh_rotfl I guess they would at that..equal oportunity fraud.

[K.Snyder]

This is almost conspiracy theory thread material...In fact,..it quite is...

If I were to hear this eight years ago, I would have thought it was quite neurotic and completely paranoid delusion,..but considering that past elections I myself can understand.

The coincidences have been too many in the past elections to not expect something like this...

[anastrophe]

here's something else i don't entirely understand. according to quite a few people, bush stole the 2000 election. quite a few people maintain that he stole the 2004 election as well.



so why, with bush still in the whitehouse, and huge pre-election talk about how there's going to be so many voting irregularities, and the election could be stolen again.....then why did the democrats take control of congress tonight? if they were capable of stealing a presidential election, surely they'd be capable of stealing the midterm. if these nefarious neocons were so all powerful that they installed bush *twice* - well then what went wrong this time around?



of course, the rational explanation is that while there are always voting irregularities (often times, many orders of magnitude greater irregularities in the 20th century), irregularities don't mean an election was stolen.



but the nattering nabobs of leftism will never accept that. even with this apparently 'unstolen' midterm election.

[spot]

anastrophe;452955 wrote: if these nefarious neocons were so all powerful that they installed bush *twice* - well then what went wrong this time around?Perhaps these nefarious neocons want someone else to pull the nation's hand out of the fire? Being able to subsequently point and say "It was their fault it all went bad" is getting to be a political necessity for PNAC's implementors.

[spot]

As I see on-topic snippets I'll drop them in here. This is today's Times:Over 90 per cent of polls yesterday were equipped with new computerised voting machines.

In 2004, the former head of the biggest provider, Diebolt, wrote a fundraising letter stating that he was committed "to help Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President".

In Ohio all 12 voting machines in a predominately black district in Cleveland crashed when voting opened at 6.30am, feeding fears that minority and largely Democrat-leaning voters were being disenfranchised.

[Adam Zapple]

spot;452980 wrote: Perhaps these nefarious neocons want someone else to pull the nation's hand out of the fire? Being able to subsequently point and say "It was their fault it all went bad" is getting to be a political necessity for PNAC's implementors.


If the Dems try a quick pullout and/or further hamstring our troops then such finger pointing will be warranted. Things could be decided worse in Iraq and if the Dems implement policies to bring that about then they should be held accountable.

Many of the Dems who won yesterday are more conservative than the leadership of Pelosi and Harry Reid. Bob Casey of Penn, Brad Ellison of Ind., and Heath Shuler of NC are a few examples of pro-life Democrats who won based on dissatisfaction with the situation in Iraq. But it will be interesting to see if some of these moderate Dems will agree with the Kerry/Murtha solution to Iraq.

Either way, while losing Congress is not good news for Republicans in immediate, it will help them in the future. They lost because they have not governed by conservative principles and were abandoned by their base. Now, as Pelosi/Reid reenergize conservatives, the Republicans will have a chance to recruit true conservatives to run for Congress. And I predict that when Bush leaves in two years, his poll numbers will be higher than they are now. Two years of Democratic leadership will help Republicans in 2008.

[zinkyusa]

Adam Zapple;453141 wrote: If the Dems try a quick pullout and/or further hamstring our troops then such finger pointing will be warranted. Things could be decided worse in Iraq and if the Dems implement policies to bring that about then they should be held accountable.

Many of the Dems who won yesterday are more conservative than the leadership of Pelosi and Harry Reid. Bob Casey of Penn, Brad Ellison of Ind., and Heath Shuler of NC are a few examples of pro-life Democrats who won based on dissatisfaction with the situation in Iraq. But it will be interesting to see if some of these moderate Dems will agree with the Kerry/Murtha solution to Iraq.

Either way, while losing Congress is not good news for Republicans in immediate, it will help them in the future. They lost because they have not governed by conservative principles and were abandoned by their base. Now, as Pelosi/Reid reenergize conservatives, the Republicans will have a chance to recruit true conservatives to run for Congress. And I predict that when Bush leaves in two years, his poll numbers will be higher than they are now. Two years of Democratic leadership will help Republicans in 2008.


I disagree agree with some this adam but certainly not all..I think the results indicate a desire to return to more centrist politics and is a firm rejection of George W. Bush's policies in Iraq..I am democrat but will always vote the candidate for President. I have voted for Republicans in the past and could easily do so again. I did not vote for George W. Bush in either election however. I think the Republicans experienced a serious backlash because Bush has been unwilling to compromise and seek a new direction in Iraq. American support was initially high for the war but has eroded because of the horribly executed strategy after the war was won.

I think you can expect investigations and supenas up the ying yang by the Congress...They also now will control the purse strings becuase they will control the approriations comitees in the House..If they find anything in these investigations, they will gain support if they don't they will viewed as obstructionist. Right now they have no plan for Iraq and are hiding behind the Baker-Hamilton report before they voice any kind of strategy for Iraq. As you point out in your comments some of the new democrats are conservative socially and cannot be taken for granted by the dem leadership, on the other hand I think you will see the appropriations commitee chairs going to some very liberal people.

Any way you look at it the free ride is over for Bush, he will have to compromise or there will be gridlock..especially if the senate ends up blue as well

[cherandbuster]

zinkyusa;453151 wrote: I disagree agree with some this adam but certainly not all..I think the results indicate a desire to return to more centrist politics and is a firm rejection of George W. Bush's policies in Iraq..I am democrat but will always vote the candidate for President. I have voted for Republicans in the past and could easily do so again. I did not vote for George W. Bush in either election however. I think the Republicans experienced a serious backlash because Bush has been unwilling to compromise and seek a new direction in Iraq. American support was initially high for the war but has eroded because of the horribly executed strategy after the war was won.

I think you can expect investigations and supenas up the ying yang by the Congress...They also now will control the purse strings becuase they will control the approriations comitees in the House..If they find anything in these investigations, they will gain support if they don't they will viewed as obstructionist. Right now they have no plan for Iraq and are hiding behind the Baker-Hamilton report before they voice any kind of strategy for Iraq. As you point in your comments some of the new democrats are conservative socially and cannot be taken for granted by the dem leadership, on the other hand I think you will see the appropriations commitee chairs going to some very liberal people.

Any way you look at it the free ride is over for Bush, he will have to compromise or there will be gridlock..especially if the senate ends up blue as well


Zinkmeister

Great post :-6

[Adam Zapple]

zinkyusa;453151 wrote: I disagree agree with some this adam but certainly not all..I think the results indicate a desire to return to more centrist politics and is a firm rejection of George W. Bush's policies in Iraq.


Certainly, Iraq played a great part in the election. That's primarily what Democrats ran on and it was effective for them. However, the question is what will the Democrats do? What can they do? They probably don't have the votes to override any Bush veto. They're probable leadership will include people like Pelosi, Murtha, Reid, Kerry, etc - far to the left. Many of the Democrats yesterday won on a platform of change in Iraq but not on an immediate withdrawal that many of the far left in Congress want. This causes an immediate fission in Democratic philosophy. How will that play out? I'm not sure about centrist politics having that much influence in the election. What was it, eight states that passed amendments defining marriage as that between a man and woman? I think it was Iraq and Republican scandals that energized moderates and liberals and caused conservatives to stay home.



zinky wrote: .I am democrat but will always vote the candidate for President. I have voted for Republicans in the past and could easily do so again. I did not vote for George W. Bush in either election however. I think the Republicans experienced a serious backlash because Bush has been unwilling to compromise and seek a new direction in Iraq. American support was initially high for the war but has eroded because of the horribly executed strategy after the war was won.


I essentially agree with all of this. I think things could be much better in Iraq, but I also realize these things take a lot of time. My concern, and where I agree with you, is the perception that Bush and Rumsfield have not always listened to the generals in the field. I don't know if this is true or not, I'm not privy to those meetings but you are entirely correct - Bush has created a perception that he is not willing to compromise or change his policy to fit the needs in Iraq. I'm not entirely certain this is true but it did impact the election. I also think the MSM has been derelict to ignore the positive in Iraq - not for Bush's sake but for the troops who are over there putting their lives on the line. They deserve to have their successes lauded as loudly as their failures and the press has failed miserably.



zinky wrote: I think you can expect investigations and supenas up the ying yang by the Congress...They also now will control the purse strings becuase they will control the approriations comitees in the House..If they find anything in these investigations, they will gain support if they don't they will viewed as obstructionist. Right now they have no plan for Iraq and are hiding behind the Baker-Hamilton report before they voice any kind of strategy for Iraq. As you point out in your comments some of the new democrats are conservative socially and cannot be taken for granted by the dem leadership, on the other hand I think you will see the appropriations commitee chairs going to some very liberal people.

Any way you look at it the free ride is over for Bush, he will have to compromise or there will be gridlock..especially if the senate ends up blue as well


I can't argue with any of that.

[nvalleyvee]

Dang it took 4 days to determine the Republican incumbent won by less than 6,000 votes. I voted Republican. Go HEATHER.

[BTS]

anastrophe;452955 wrote: here's something else i don't entirely understand. according to quite a few people, bush stole the 2000 election. quite a few people maintain that he stole the 2004 election as well.



so why, with bush still in the whitehouse, and huge pre-election talk about how there's going to be so many voting irregularities, and the election could be stolen again.....then why did the democrats take control of congress tonight? if they were capable of stealing a presidential election, surely they'd be capable of stealing the midterm. if these nefarious neocons were so all powerful that they installed bush *twice* - well then what went wrong this time around?



of course, the rational explanation is that while there are always voting irregularities (often times, many orders of magnitude greater irregularities in the 20th century), irregularities don't mean an election was stolen.



but the nattering nabobs of leftism will never accept that. even with this apparently 'unstolen' midterm election.




OH yaH,,,,,,,,,Pablo.......U forgot ol GW also planned and executed 911....

So therefor why could he NOT pull this little miracle off, also?

[BTS]

zinkyusa;453151 wrote:

I think you can expect investigations and supenas up the ying yang by the Congress...




YIPPERS............ u KAN...................



Is this good for the country when MOST all the demos also voted to go to war too?????



Need i show u?