BS: Election results

Subject: RE: BS: Election results
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Nov 06 - 11:08 AM

It's easy to say that judges should not be affected by partisan issues. What's interesting is that judges are attacked from both sides of the political spectrum. Richard is referring primarily to the revolting spectacle of the 2000 election, I believe. But "activist judges" are the bane of the Right--the WSJ is always fulminating against them--and many consider that such judges are frustrating the "will of the people" (that favorite phrase of all malcontents) by doing the bidding of the Left--in such rulings as those against 10 Commandments plaques in courthouses, and those forbidding property owners from developing their own land because an endangered species has been found on it.

#1 poster child of this these days is the Kelo decision--about eminent domain. Though in this case, while the loudmouths on the Right don't admit it, the Left doesn't like Kelo either.

But face it, lots of issues judges deal with are "party political issues". In 2000 somebody had to settle the issue of the election. It's obvious that it was settled in a blatantly political way--just as the 1800 and 1876 elections were. But it's unclear what a better approach would be--as I said, the 1800 and 1876 elections were settled by pretty seamy means--as was the 1824 election. Not all involving Supreme Court machinations.

Subject: RE: BS: Election results
From: Barry Finn
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 07:11 PM

Yes & it's been a problem with the last 6 years of Superme Court nominees.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Election results
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 05:32 PM

Has it occurred to anyone that judges shold not be affected by party political issues, otherwise they are not impartial and there is no rule of law?

Subject: RE: BS: Election results
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 04:54 PM

Lincoln Chafee had reason to stay a Republican--and in that capacity he has performed some services--and continues to do so. As I recall, he now says he will keep Bolton's appointment to the UN bottled up-------which will kill it.

Subject: RE: BS: Election results
From: pdq
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 04:44 PM

Bernie Sanders is defnitely a Socialist. He spent many years in the House. This year he ran for the Senate as an 'independent", not as a Democrat. He won.

Yes, many of the House candidates positioned themselves to the right of their Republican opponents. Many won, some did not. The northern Nevada House candidate ran ads with phrases like "conservative values right off the farm". I still have no idea what she stands for but she is a regent of the Unuversity of Nevada.

Subject: RE: BS: Election results
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 04:33 PM

Today on NPR they were talking about Hillary finally backing away from the pro-war stance. I've always been dismayed and puzzled that she would hold the position she has--it seems to be based upon information that none of the rest of us could see. And since so much of what Bush was peddling was also out of view (and as it happens, non-existent, not "facts" but speculation about Iraq), it did put her in a troubling position. One of those troubling darker shades of gray in a world that some of our members can only see as black and white.

Lincoln Chafee should have made the switch before now. Maybe staying put was a calculated move to try to put the brakes on what Bush was doing, but it was that darned label that got in the way. The old Aesop fable comes to mind, that you're judged by the company you keep.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Election results
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 12:41 PM

The obvious anti-war Republican who has been removed is Lincoln Chafee. And I agree that was a shame--he was a true profile in courage to buck his party on Iraq. Can you name any others?

But in most other cases, the Republican who was removed was a supporter of Bush's Iraq war--and the winning Democrat not so much.

Subject: RE: BS: Election results
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 06:15 AM

Reports in UK suggest that one of the reasons for the swing in the Mid-term elections was that many of the Democratic candidates were actually Republicans in disguise!

This phenomenon has already occured in the UK, where the electorate voted en masse for Blairs Labour party, only to find that when in power they positioned themselves far to the right of centre.

They also made the UK govt the creature of American Neo Conservatism.

Does any Mudcatter know of a Democrat who stood for election who is also a Socialist??

Seems that once again we have been fooled into voting for the labels. Decent anti war Republicans have been removed and pro war Democrats in the mould of Mrs Clinton returned.....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Election results
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 01:24 AM

On Wednesday, Democratic control of the US Senate was assured when the final two defeated Republican incumbent Senators offered concession statements: Burns and Allen.

"Say Goodnight, Gracie."

Subject: RE: BS: Election results
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 01:16 AM

"governorship"

Subject: RE: BS: Election results
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 01:12 AM

Jimmy Carter wrote about voting irregularities decades ago in Georgia in one of the earliest books he wrote after his presidency.

I see that BB is keeping up with his reading in The Sun and The National Enquirer.

We weren't able to evict any of the Republican headliners here in Texas, but an interesting thing happened in Dallas. It looks like a lot of folks there voted straight Democratic tickets. It wasn't enough to get rid of the governor and his ilk in the region, but it knocked almost every Republican judge out of a job. Democrats who had done only half-hearted campaigns because they thought they couldn't beat the long-standing Republican bench didn't take into account voter anger at Bush. Here is a Dallas Morning News article (it may require a free registration to read it.) Here's the bottom half or so of it:

Southern Methodist University political scientist Cal Jillson said he was mildly surprised by Tuesday night's outcome, as he had anticipated the county's Democratic conversion would be two or four years away.

He attributed the Democrats' edge to the county's growing minority population and "the general tide in the favor of the Democrats nationally." He also pointed to a large contingent of straight-ticket voting, noting that most voters generally lack the time and interest to learn about dozens of judicial candidates and instead prefer to choose a slate from one party or the other.

He also said the Hispanic marches and voter registration drives from earlier this year played a modest role, although fewer than 7,500 new voters with Hispanic surnames eventually registered in Dallas County, according to county records.

Burl Hawkins, 43, of Dallas, said he was among several people he knows who voted a Democratic straight ticket.

"We are the kind of voters everyone hates," he said. "In general, Democrats are unhappy with the current administration. Bush is in denial. He needs a slap in the face to wake up."

At Graham's Barber Shop No. 6 on Martin Luther King Boulevard, manager Carl Simon said he voted a split ticket, but speculated that most people are upset about the war – "too many of those boys have been killed over in Iraq" – and voted strictly for Democrats.

"You have people who are still mad about gas prices," said Robert Rosenthal, 62, of Dallas, as he waited for a trim. "You had people pawning rings so they could buy gas. It was also about (Hurricane) Katrina. You had people looking at the TV and saw people struggling. That wasn't good."

Some DallasNews.com readers said they were disappointed with the revolution that handed losses to talented Republican leaders and judges and suggested that voters made their decisions thoughtlessly.

"Bush has nothing to do with our district attorney, county judge and other local elected officials. This is a sad day," said one.

Mr. Jillson scoffed at the idea that Dallas County voters blindly cast ballots based solely on national politics. And he said it would be risky for local Republicans to draw that conclusion.

"If the Republicans are going to claw their way back … the last thing they want to say is they lost because the voters are uneducated or misinformed," he said. "They're in sort of a dangerous mindset at this point. They can talk themselves into a permanent minority status."

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Election results
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 12:43 AM

Re: LBJ in 1948:

He was just putting into practice what he had learned in his race for Senate in 1941, as I recall. The beer interests, wanting to kick anti-alcohol Pappy upstairs--and out of Texas-- from the governership to the Senate, waited until Johnson's vote total had been given--then, knowing how many votes they needed to beat him, produced that number.

Subject: RE: BS: Election results
From: Cruiser
Date: 09 Nov 06 - 10:57 PM

I got my Republican Early Ballot and voted mostly for Democrats after researching their platforms.

Now if you Dems can just put forth a decent honorable candidate for President...

Subject: RE: BS: Election results
From: GUEST,Marion
Date: 09 Nov 06 - 10:06 PM

What great news. Congratulations, Americans.

Subject: RE: BS: Election results
From: DannyC
Date: 09 Nov 06 - 09:57 PM

Did you see the pic of Webb today?
After the final Bush body blow?

Clenched fists raised over his head in victory?

I am told that Webb and Ollie North squared off
in the finals of the Brigade Boxing Championship
in their shared Annapolis days...

Look who is still standing!!!

And what he's standing for:

"Webb said he hoped to work to "bring a sense of responsibility that will result soon, I hope, in a diplomatic solution in Iraq."

The senator-elect also pledged "to work hard on issues of economic fairness, and I look forward to joining Sen. (Charles) Schumer in voting to increase the minimum wage."

Webb called on President Bush "to publicly denounce the campaign tactics that have divided us rather than bring us together."
(from MSNBC - 11/09/2006)

Ah, ya' boy ya'!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Election results
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Nov 06 - 08:30 PM

Yes, without Santorum - the work at the National Institutes of Health will go a lot smoother and faster.

Used to be: any research that had the word sex in it, had anything to do with reproductive health or virtually didn't list God as the the prime mover of a project, ended up having to answer to a probe by Santorum that made it necessary to stop and explain why the science was not an offense to God or that it had nothing to do with actual humans having actual non marital or homosexual sex.

Subject: RE: BS: Election results
From: GUEST,good news
Date: 09 Nov 06 - 07:50 PM

Santorum, that frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter which is the by-product of anal sex,

LOST.

Subject: RE: BS: Election results
From: GUEST,jaze
Date: 09 Nov 06 - 07:36 PM

For once, I'm proud of Virginia!

Subject: RE: BS: Election results
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 09 Nov 06 - 05:04 PM

Wolfgang asked about the predictions of fraud in the election. While for the most part elections do seem to be run about as well as anywhere, fraud, corruption, influence, and down-right dirty tricks are such a part of some that perhaps we're just sort of conditioned to expect the worst.

The comment about Senator Allen of Virginia is behind & looking to beat Webb but is down 7000 or so votes & claims to have picked up 1000 on side of the road somewhere, brings to mind a fairly well known and probably credible story that might be illustrative:

Lyndon Johnson's Victory in the 1948 Texas Senate Race: A Reappraisal, Dale Baum, James L. Hailey, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 109, No. 4 (Autumn, 1994), pp. 595-613
doi:10.2307/2151840

Only the first page is publicly accessible at the link, but that's sufficient to get the drift; and many libraries can get the full article for you.

"Six days after the 1948 Texas senatorial runoff election, enigmatically amended returns produced what the winning candidate, Lyndon Baines Johnson, humorously referred to as his "87-vote landslide." … Accounts by historians of LBJ's razor-thin victory have invariably converged on the Thirteenth Precinct in the South Texas town of Alice in Jim Wells County, where 202 Mexican—American voters, some of whom were deceased or had been absent from the county on election day, reportedly lined up in alphabetical order at the very last minute to cast their ballots overwhelmingly for Johnson."

A more complete version of the story appears at Pp 657 – 666 in Uncle John's 4-ply Bathroom Reader, ©1991 The Bathroom Reader's Institute, Barnes & Noble. Hired gunmen, Texas Rangers, Federal Marshalls, a Supreme Court Justice, and a particularly notorious member of "Texas landed gentry" who may have later "assisted" Texas Governor Connoly's election, reportedly were involved.

No disrespect to LBJ intended. Just to illustrate that it's sort of a tradition?

John

Subject: RE: BS: Election results
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 09 Nov 06 - 04:57 PM

Well done America.

You should be proud of yourselves.

You have done a great thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Election results
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 Nov 06 - 04:21 PM

Now what was that about whiney fascist crybabies?

Subject: RE: BS: Election results
From: katlaughing
Date: 09 Nov 06 - 04:10 PM

YES!!!

Just got off the phone with Alba. She's asked me to tell you all that she is ecstatic and was saying something along the lines of "Karma will get you, Georgie. Works for me, and against you!" She also said she's got on her orange fu.., oh, I mean her orange duck-hunting gear on, lame duck that is.

Now I know the majority of Americans have been paying attention and had enough, finally! Congratulations, USA!

Subject: RE: BS: Election results
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Nov 06 - 03:25 PM

Allen just conceded to Webb. The Democrats have control of both houses.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Election results
From: Amos
Date: 09 Nov 06 - 02:11 PM

Him and about 3 million other folks...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Election results
From: kendall
Date: 09 Nov 06 - 02:07 PM

Just for the record my congressman, Tom Allen, was against the war from the start. Apparently he saw through the lies right off.

Subject: RE: BS: Election results
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 09 Nov 06 - 11:54 AM

Which voting machine company is Clinton the CEO of?

Subject: RE: BS: Election results
From: Sorcha
Date: 09 Nov 06 - 11:36 AM

No House decision in Wyo until Nov. 15 but I bet Barbie Doll Cubin, R, won. Half of Wyoming is dumber than a box of rocks.

Subject: RE: BS: Election results
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 09 Nov 06 - 11:34 AM

BillD,

My comment was that if there was any tampering IN MD it would be by the Dems, who control the LOCAL election boards in the populous areas. With ony 4 counties, they can shift to electing all Dems in the close contests- like govornor and Senate ( Gee, I wonder who won???)


Ron,


The LOCAL election boards are the ones with the access to change the vote totals. Didn't Bill Clinton claim he would deliver some votes, this election? Which machines did he tamper with?
I anm presenting MORE evidence of fraud in MD that has been shown in Ohio. The fact thet the "wrong" side one seems to have been enough to call into question Ohio 2004.

Subject: RE: BS: Election results
From: Barry Finn
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 11:35 PM

Allen has conceded, the Senate is controled by the Democrates. Thank you republicans for helping to make this so.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Election results
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 11:23 PM

BB--

I wonder if you remember what the CEO of Diebold said in 2004. Clue: he said he would deliver Ohio.

Did he say

1) To the Republicans?

or

2) To the Democrats?

When you've figured that out, ask yourself how likely it would be that Diebold machines would be rigged to deliver all Maryland races to the Democrats.


And, by the way, please be sure to also share with us sources, impeccable-- as your sources always are-- which prove your assertion.


Thanks so much.

Subject: RE: BS: Election results
From: Charley Noble
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 10:24 PM

Don-

I really like your posts. It sounds like you really got involved and worked hard, and helped make an impact on your statewide elections.

Now if we could get more Mudcatters herded together, we might just take over the country in two years. Amos for President! And suggestions for Czarina?

Cheerily,
Charley Noble, logging off for more sleep

Subject: RE: BS: Election results
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 09:37 PM

Wolfgang (and others), there may be a reason that we haven't heard much about voter fraud this time around. HERE. Move On and several other organizations have put a bounty on people responsible for trying to cobble the election.

This, however, didn't stop the Republicans from "robo-calling" (automatic dialing with a taped messages) independent and undecided voters, and voters registered as Democrats, with a message urging them to vote for Democrat candidates in the middle of the night (like two or three o'clock in the morning) in an effort to make them so angry that they either wouldn't vote at all or vote Republican. This was only one of a number of dirty tricks that have been reported.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Election results
From: Peace
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 09:13 PM

I wish to say to my Republican friends on Mudcat that y'all fought a good fight and over the years I have listened to you when you have chortled and laughed and been real smug. I ain't about to return that to y'all. I'm thankful your country has at last got a mechanism and possibility of impeaching Bush and Cheney. Now, let's see if the Democrats have the balls to do just that, because those two bastards have GOT to go!

Subject: RE: BS: Election results
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 09:09 PM

It became very clear during the aftermath of your 2000 election that for a lot of people the important thing wasn't to get the correct result, it was to get the right result.

Subject: RE: BS: Election results
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 08:48 PM

Well Beardedbrucie,

Amongst mudcatters, I will bet that I will see people like kat here who I would guess is democrat still arguing that the lack of a paper trail is unsafe even if it could be suggested (fairly or otherwise) that dems could have benifited from fixings.

The lack of recognition of the underlying and real problem has, at least on Mudcat, seemed to come from republicans who have never wanted to question a poor system but instead seemlingly have not been able to get thier brains beyond "you only say that because you lost".

Perhaps an oppertunity for all Americans to want "accountable" voting systems?

Subject: RE: BS: Election results
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 08:37 PM

They could put him on trial maybe. But I suppose they'd have to wait till the occupation armies have left.

Subject: RE: BS: Election results
From: GUEST,jaze
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 08:26 PM

Bush should be exiled to Iraq, of course. They'd love to have him.

Subject: RE: BS: Election results
From: Barry Finn
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 07:47 PM

It's really a dead issue. The pressure is on Allen to concede so it looks like a noble step on the Republicans part towards a bi-part-sons of bitches work together policy & if Allen holds out it's gonna be looking like sour grapes on the party's part.

The retally (not recount) is being attended be Dems & Reps both with lawyers from both parties overseeing each other.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Election results
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 07:35 PM

I suppose we can expect that there'll be mobs of Democrats besieging the place where any recount might be carried out in order to disrupt the process and stop the recount?

Or is it just the Republicans who do that kind of thing?

Subject: RE: BS: Election results
From: Maryrrf
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 07:27 PM

I wish Allen would just go ahead and concede the election!

Subject: RE: BS: Election results
From: Barry Finn
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 07:24 PM

Sorry, the major fault is now being played out in Virginia. They vote for the machines. Now they've got Senator Allen (R) losing by 7000 votes & he's looking to hold out for a recount. He's losing by 3/4 of 1% & all he's gonna get is a retally of what was already counted. The machines leave no paper trail. I guess this election is telling the same story what most people already knew. The machines are no good with out a paper trail & that there's plenty that goes wrong with them, aside from fraud. So why is Allen holding out? Why do we need to wait until Nov 27 for the same results? Will the country (government) still favor these machines? Probably! "When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn"?

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Election results
From: Barry Finn
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 07:14 PM

I just listened to Howard Dean's interview & the subject of faulty machines came up as well as any fraud or complacations. The Dems had 7500 lawyers on call so as soon as a problem was phoned in a lawyer was sent strait over & Dean mentioned that the problems were straiten out right away. So he believe many of the problems were nipped in the bub before they became rel problems. He admits that there were plenty of faults of all types to go around but that this time it was held to a min.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Election results
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 07:00 PM

IF the Maryland machines had been tampered with, the tamperers would NOT have been so obvious as to program "Republician victory, no matter what"....IF there were tampering, it would have to be subtle, to 'tweak' close races one way or another....or to 'invalidate' a certain number of voting attempts.

You see, no one has proven absolutely that tampering HAS been done, only that it is possible and hard to prevent the way it is currently set up. And, since Diebold IS on record as being very much to the right, it is not hard to imagine which way any tampering would go.

If exit polls showed a nice Democratic victory and the machines said something else, it WOULD be cause for concern. You know & I know that IF the potential for cheating is there and no safeguards are in place, eventually someone will exploit those flaws.

It may be that no Diebold machines were 'adjusted'....or it may be that the margins were not within the parameters of adjustment.

We DO know that a number of other 'dirty tricks' were attempted to trick, discourage or prevent Democratic voting in a number of places...(phone calls telling them to go to the wrong polls...etc.)

What we see is Rove's plan to ensure Republican victory for the forseeable future is beginning to unravel a bit, but we STILL need to design the voting procedures so that **NO ONE** can manipulate elections directly!!

Subject: RE: BS: Election results
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 06:14 PM

Wolfgang,

4) The Democrats controlled the machines, but that is an "acceptable" result, and will not be questioned.



As many here have said, the use of Diebold machines makes the actual vote counts suspicious, if not unknowable... It just happens the "right" people got elected, so the use of those machines , with no verifiable checks, is OK at this time. ALL of Maryland used Diebold machines- but since it was a sweep for the Dems, of course they worked perfectly... Just like they had been programmed to by the local Democratic election boards.

Subject: RE: BS: Election results
From: Rapparee
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 05:57 PM

The one scene that sticks with me is that of Santorum's son during his father's losing speech. The kid, who looks to be about 12, was doing his best not to cry and even ducked down a couple times. HIM I felt sorry for.

Subject: RE: BS: Election results
From: alanabit
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 05:52 PM

Don't you go dumping your riff raff over here - we have got enough of our own!

Subject: RE: BS: Election results
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 05:49 PM

Doing good after evil will never atone for the evil.

Internationally speaking anything less than offering W's head on a plate will be too little too late.

Remember the good old Roman tradition of exile?

Where could we exile W?

Subject: RE: BS: Election results
From: GUEST,Rich (bodhránaí gan cookie)
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 05:33 PM

We've done our part in PA.   Santorum got destroyed and we did a good bit to help paint the house blue as well.   


Rich

Subject: RE: BS: Election results
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 05:25 PM

Actually looking at the two of them on the box tonight it occurred to me, why on earth is Hilary Clinton seen as a more plausible presidential candidate than Nancy Pelosi?

I mean Cherie Blair is very probably at least as bright as Tony, but nobody is going around suggesting that she should inherit the mantle of PM.

There does seem to be a real appetite for dynastic succession in the American system sometimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Election results
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 05:07 PM

"She is 3rd in line now."

Not yet awhile. None of these changes take effect until into the new year. At this point, if Bush and Cheney both choked on a pretzel tonight, your President for the next two years (at least) would apparently be a bloke called Dennis Hastert. "President Dennis"...