Showing posts with label 2004 Election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2004 Election. Show all posts

Saturday, October 27, 2012

Election 2012: Ohio for Romney? Really?

2012-10-26.  03.

Yes.  I am sticking to my map. Some disagree with predicting that Ohio will go for Romney. Here is a closer look at that...

Honestly, fear of fraud is one reason I put Ohio in the red.

The second reason is that I am not confident that Obama will sweep the toss up states, and this is a way to show that one of the worst possibilities for Obama would still lead to a narrow victory, more a case playing with the vote numbers than actually predicting which specific states will break red or blue...

But the main reason? I am having a lot of flashbacks to Ohio in 2004 right now.

Here are the pre-election polls for 2004 in Ohio:

D.C. Political Report: Slight Republican
Associated Press: Toss Up
CNN: Kerry
Cook Political Report: Toss Up
Newsweek: Toss Up
New York Times: Toss Up
Rasmussen Reports: Toss Up
Research 2000: Toss Up
Washington Post: Battleground
Washington Times: Battleground
Zogby International: Tied
Washington Dispatch: Kerry

I think Ohio is harder to call than a lot of states due to its demographics and mix of urban and rural areas.

I really hope that it goes to Obama, that would make this election a slam dunk for him. But, I am not ready to bet on it.

I am pretty sure this is why a lot of other people are not ready to call Ohio one way or the other yet, also, even though it is leaning Obama, just as it was leaning Kerry in 2004.

United States presidential election in Ohio, 2004 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Pre-election polling showed a lot of volatility throughout the general election. In September, Bush was gaining momentum here reaching over 50% in several polls and even reaching double digit margins in some.

But in October, Kerry gained back momentum as he started winning many of the polls, leading between 48% to as high as 50%. The last 3 polls averaged Kerry leading 49% to 48%.

Related Posts

Friday, October 26, 2012

2012 Election: Polls & Predictions… A narrow and divided victory for Obama?

It’s getting close to the end now and I am starting to get some gut feelings about this one.  Still, overall, I wouldn’t be surprised by either outcome in the presidential race.  However, I would be slightly less surprised if Obama won. 

November 6 is going to be an interesting night.

Game Changers

A little over a week out… Is it too late for any game changers? 

Probably, but a few things do come to mind.  First, Florida looks like it is tightening up again.  If it tilts blue, done.  Early night a week from Tuesday and we all get a good night’s sleep.

Also, as we get a little closer, there is always the possibility that the press starts paying more attention to the fact that it is really going to be tough for Romney to win the Electoral Vote unless the polls are as far off as Dewey / Truman in 1948.  If the media starts talking about Obama’s Electoral Vote Firewall instead of Romney’s questionable momentum (basically manufactured by GOP talking heads, not recent polls), then this could break more in Obama’s direction.

Why?  Because 1% to 2% of these idiotic, undecided swing voters are going to vote for whoever is in the lead because they want to vote for the winner.  Usually this segment is small enough that it does not effect the outcome of the election, but in super tight races?  Who knows?  Usually when super tight races head into election day, they are too close to call and these folks stay home.  But if Obama is looking solid heading into election day, these folks might show up and vote for him, increasing his possible margin of victory.  

Hell, they might even win Obama the popular vote, but more on that later.

Another possibility, especially if the press starts giving more time to Obama’s Electoral Vote advantages…  Romney starts making some last minute, desperate Hail Mary swings through the silly zone.  When this guy goes big, he starts getting strange. 

At this point, though, can any further goofy headlines effect Romney?  Who knows?  But if he is feeling desperate, we may see some interesting moments a la John McCain’s “See, I’m Not To Old To Be President” marathon bus tour on the eve of the election.

Most likely… I predict we might see things firming up a little bit more for Obama in the state by state races, but I think we are pretty much heading into the popular vote within the margin of error, therefore tied.

So yes.  I am going ahead and posting my predictions for November 6. 

I reserve the right to change my mind later if something crazy happens.

Numbers & Predictions: All Hail Nate Silver

2012-10-26. 02.First of all… Let’s jam through the who’s, what’s, and what’s everyone saying…

Five Thirty Eight: Nate Silver's Political Calculus: Oct. 25: The State of the States - NYTimes.com:

Thursday was a busy day for the polls, with some bright spots for each candidate. But it made clear that Barack Obama maintains a narrow lead in the polling averages in states that would get him to 270 electoral votes. Mr. Obama also remains roughly tied in the polls in two other states, Colorado and Virginia, that could serve as second lines of defense for him if he were to lose a state like Ohio.

The day featured the release of 10 national polls, but there was little in the way of a consistent pattern in them.

Nate Silver's Newest Prediction: 73% Obama!:

Although the race is still close in several swing states, statistical guru Nate Silver’s newest prediction is 73.1% Obama to 26.9% Romney

Nate Silver’s track record on election predictions is pretty solid, so much so that the GOP is going after him, apparently.

Republicans Desperate to Spin Romney as the Front-Runner Are Becoming 'Nate Silver Truthers' | Alternet:

…in recent days, the Romney-Ryan campaign has claimed that it's moving ahead. As Jonathan Chait noted, “This is a bluff. Romney is carefully attempting to project an atmosphere of momentum, in the hopes of winning positive media coverage and, thus, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.” Despite zero evidence that Romney has made any gains since receiving a healthy bounce from the first debate, reporters appear to be buying it, with a raft of lazy stories about Mitt Romney's supposed “momentum.”

A significant problem for conservatives bent on spinning this alternate reality is New York Times ' polling guru Nate Silver and his 538 forecast model, which called 49 out of 50 states accurately in 2008 and is considered the industry's gold standard (the model also pretty much nailed the 2010 mid-terms).

Yeah, don’t even get me started on the “raft of lazy stories about Mitt Romney's supposed ‘momentum.’”  I called that one back before the first debate.

Democracy In Distress: How Mitt Romney will win the first debate:

…what happens next really depends on media spin.  Not the partisan talking heads, but the producers, writers, editors, reporters and directors out there.

The media wants a story to tell.  If the election is pretty much settled a month out, that leaves four weeks of dead air time…  Which they will fill by trying to create the feeling that the race is much closer than it really is.  The problem?  People will start believing it, and everyone loves a come from behind underdog, right?

Sorry, got distracted there for a second.  The press is dead to me and I mourn them from time to time…

Numbers & Predictions: Nate Silver vs. My Gut

So, Nate’s current prediction... 

2012-10-26. 03.

This map brings the Electoral Vote in with Obama winning 303 to 235.  Even if he only calls 49 out of 50, it is a happy night for Team Obama. 

Unless, of course, Nate blows the Ohio call for Obama. 

Oh.  Oops.  Sorry, that was the conventional wisdom I’ve been hearing from press outlets hungry for a story. 

If only one of Nate’s Obama states go for Romney instead, pulling off the 49 out of 50 prediction from 2008, then Obama still wins “easily.”

Colorado, Virginia, and Ohio pretty much ALL have to shift over to Romney for the U.S. to elect its first Mormon president with a final electoral count of  275 Romney to 263 Obama.  (P.S.  I have no problem with a Mormon President and, I fear, that might be the coolest thing about a Romney Administration…)

Of course, there are other paths to 270 for Romney, but this would be the most likely.

There are also a couple paths that lead to the House of Representatives deciding this one.  Even more unlikely than a Romney presidency, but more likely than in most elections.

Nate’s calling this for Obama with a pretty big margin in the Electoral Vote and a bigger margin in the Popular Vote than I am comfortable with right now. 

I think it’s going to be closer.  How much closer?  2000 close? 

I hope not.  But my Electoral College prediction looks frightenly similar to the 2000 numbers.

My Prediction for the Electoral Vote: Obama Wins, 272 to 266

Right now, my personal prediction looks a lot tighter than Nate’s. 

2012-10-26.  03.

This is the tightest it can be with Obama still coming out on top.  Right now, too many things have to break Romney’s way for him to win, in too many states that are leaning blue.  However, unlike Nate Silver, I do not see Obama sweeping all of the “tied” states right now.  This is my worst case scenario for an Obama victory, but I do not think Obama will break 300, though as of now I think he will get 270.

And I am worried enough about shenanigans in Ohio that I am tossing the state to Romney in my prediction.

Obama-Romney Race May Hinge on 2 Ohio Counties | RealClearPolitics:

If the race for president can be boiled down to two key counties in one key state, then those jurisdictions are Hamilton and Cuyahoga, here in the Buckeye State.

And, as Dan Rather put it on election night in 2000, "This race is tight like a too-small bathing suit on a too-long ride home from the beach."

My Prediction for the Popular Vote: Mitt Romney Wins

As for the popular vote, unless some of the game changers I mentioned above occur, I am predicting that Romney will win the popular vote.  Yeah, I know Nate went with Obama.  But I don’t.

2012-10-26. 05.

I don’t like or trust CNN polling this year.  I think they are swinging towards Romney where possible and I believe that they are holding back on making some pretty solid calls on the electoral map just to keep viewers interested and watching, but I do feel like Romney has a slightly insurmountable lead in the COMPLETELY MEANINGLESS national polls. 

However, CNN is not the only one showing Romney holding steady in the national polls. 

2012-10-26. 08.

The polls are pretty much all over the place, but with Obama only leading in three of eleven and tied in one other, I think it is looking pretty bad for Obama in the popular vote.  But, as I said earlier, it doesn’t matter.  Even if we all slept through our civics classes back in junior high, everyone should be real clear on this after the 2000 election - the national popular vote decides nothing.

This Day In History

So, how does this year compare to years past…

2000 was all over the place, a lot like this year. Below is a link to 10 different polls from this date in 2000. 

Bush led in 8 out of 10 polls by margins ranging from 2% to 7%.  Gore led in two polls, by 2% and 3%.

However, the most interesting numbers in these polls come from the swing between Likely Voters and Registered Voters in Newsweek’s poll.

Bush Gains Back Lead in CNN Poll; Gore Maintains Zogby Poll Lead:

Thursday, Oct. 26, 2000

NewsWeek – likely voters (Oct. 18-20)

  • Bush 48%
    Gore 41%

NewsWeek – all registered voters (Oct. 18-20)

  • Gore 45%
    Bush 42%

If this year’s election is still up for grabs, then I predict it will be decided by which side gets their base out and by which side can motivate swing voters leaning in their direction to actually show up and vote. 

This could be a real problem for both sides.  Obama’s base is somewhat dissatisfied with him not living up to the superhuman expectations built up in 2008, and Romney’s party actually thought about going with winners like Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum before giving into the inevitable and nominating the only candidate that had with a snowball’s chance in hell of beating Obama.

When it comes down to it, I think the advantage here goes to Romney.  I think the far right’s hatred of Obama will overcome their ambivalence about Romney.  And I don’t think the far left has a motivational force of that caliber working on its side this time around, though the “rape is a gift from God” stories couldn’t have hit at a worse time for the GOP.  But it is probably not enough to balance out the Obama hatred.

However, will that be enough to beat Obama?  Probably not.  In 2004, the far left had this hatred for the GOP candidate working on their side.  They also had their own version of Romney in John Kerry.  It was a close election, it came down to Ohio, there might even have been a few shenanigans in Ohio, but not enough to make a difference in the outcome, most likely.  It was Bush’s night with or without the shenanigans.

Electoral Maps 1972-2008:

The 2004 US Presidential Election

The electoral map shown below depicts the results of the 2004 U.S. presidential election in which George W. Bush defeated John Kerry.  Bush carried 31 states and 50.7% of the popular vote.

2012-10-26. 09.

Here is a look at the 2004 polls from this point in that election.  Today we probably have about a 1% spread between Romney and Obama. Kerry was down by around 2%. All within the margin of error for everything.

2012-10-26. 06.

One thing is for certain, this is no 2008, when Obama comfortably had the popular vote wrapped up by this point.

2012-10-26. 07.

Are We Locked In?  Is This A Done Deal?

Well, in the past, including these elections we are looking at here, there have been some changes in the polls heading into the last week.  Usually whomever leads through October wins, which is what the GOP is counting on right now.

However, this is not always the case.  Of course there was Dewey / Truman in 1948.  The GOP candidate was leading Truman by fairly large margins from the spring on.  The final Gallup poll had Truman losing with 44.5%, and he was behind by about 5% at the end of October.  He ended up winning with 49.9% of the popular vote.

In 1952, in the Gallup poll, Stevenson shot up by about 10% in the last couple weeks of the election, with Eisenhower at 51% in the final survey.  It wasn’t enough and the General won with 55.4% of the popular vote.

1960…  Nixon closed around a 4% gap to a 2% gap in the last month or so, and this momentum continued to election day with Kennedy barely squeaking out a 50.1% victory in the popular vote.  In fact, this election was so close, that in a different day and age, it might have gone like 2000.

In 1968 we had a three party election with Wallace absorbing 13.53% of the popular vote and winning five states (46 electoral votes).  Through October into November, Humphrey closed an 8% gap to about 1% going into election day.  But Nixon’s lead held, of course.

Perhaps the modern election that most resembles the 2012 race is the 1976 contest between Ford and Carter. 

1976 Gallup tracking poll: Ford vs. Carter(very interesting reading!!):

Ford made up additional ground following the third debate in late October, again pulling even. In the final pre-election poll, Gallup's numbers indicated a statistical dead heat among likely voters, with Ford at 49% and Carter 48% (the unallocated numbers had Ford at 47% and Carter at 46%). The actual outcome was 50% for Carter and 48% for Ford. The election was so close that it was not certain that Carter would win until the morning after Election Day.

Then of course, we have the 2000 election… At one point in October, Gore was actually down by 13% in the Gallup survey.  By this week in 2000, Gore had closed the gap to 5% according to Gallup, and he continued to surge (if Gallup’s numbers were right, which is unlikely looking at the chaos in the polls that year). 

Of course, Gore ended up winning the popular vote 48.38% to 47.87%.  Of course, 543,895 popular votes count for nothing compared to Bush’s five extra electoral votes (271-266).

So is this over?  Absolutely not, when it comes to the popular vote.  However, Obama is looking pretty solid in the Electoral College unless the polls are off by 1948 margins, which is pretty unlikely considering the refinements in the polling process over the last 64 years.

Could This Be Another Bush / Gore Style Nightmare?

Short answer, yes.  It is possible. 

Could it break like 1960, where Nixon chose not to contest the counts in several close precincts?  Maybe. 

My gut tells me that it all depends on who is up and who is down.  I suspect the man that will say anything to be president would push it as far as it went in 2000, clinging to any chance at all to be president (for all you tea partiers that think I am talking about Obama, sorry).  Obama, I suspect, is smart enough to see how damaging that process can be to the country, and might not take it that far.

Even in 2004, there were enough questions in Ohio that some thought that Kerry should have called for some recounts.  He, however, chose to accept what was probably inevitable and to go out as a classy winner instead of a sore loser.  This was not like 2000 where it was very likely that more voters did vote for the candidate that lost than the candidate that won in the disputed state.  This was less unlikely to be the case in Ohio in 2004.

Unfortunately for Obama, the elections this year most resembles, poll wise, are 1960, 1976, and 2000.  Like 2000, the polls are a bit all over the place.  Like 1976, we have an fairly unpopular incumbent and an untested outsider hovering within a percentage point of each other.  Like 1960, we have a candidate losing the first debate only to slowly crawl his way back in the polls through the later debates and up into the election. 

The final results for the 1960?  “In the national popular vote, Kennedy beat Nixon by just one tenth of one percentage point (0.1%)—the closest popular-vote margin of the 20th century. In the Electoral College, Kennedy's victory was larger, as he took 303 electoral votes to Nixon's 219 (269 were needed to win).” (Wikipedia) 

303 is also the number Nate Silver is calling for Obama as of the evening of the 26th, according to his map, at least.

So, parallels?  1960, Romney as Kennedy, Obama as Nixon because of the debates…. Romney wins.  1976…  Incumbent loses to challenger.  Romney wins.  2000…  Late surging Gore pulls off a popular vote victory and loses the election.  Romney wins. 

But, Obama fans, take faith in the 2004 election….  In many ways, this year’s election bears more resemblance to that one than any of these others when looking at more than just the polls. 

And our, oh sweet Jesus, Bush wins in the end. 

Related Posts

Wednesday, October 03, 2012

How Mitt Romney will win tonight’s debate

2012-10-03 1.

Looking at the build up for tonight’s debate, well… Hee! I can smell the desperation from here...

However, I beg everyone, remember 2000 & 2004. Gore & Kerry were supposed to destroy W. as bad as Obama is expected to destroy Romney tonight... And those first debates were spun into "wins" for Bush, pretty much because he held his own and didn't start crying like a two year old.

Expectations are so low for Romney tonight that it will be called a win for him if he doesn't embarrass himself, and since most Americans will only check out the talking head soundbites, not the debates themselves, they will believe it.

Yes, it is looking good for Obama right now, but this is not over yet.  And, chances are, unless Romney completely blows it, most Americans will hear that Romney wins tonight.  That is my prediction.  Will it be enough to even him up in the polls?  Who know…

Just remember, listening to the media (not just Fox), and it sounded like there was a real battle for the GOP nomination this year.  When you look at the real numbers and how they were accumulated, it was an pretty clean and decisive cake walk to the nomination for Romney.  Less of a battle than Clinton / Obama in 2008, and even less than McCain / Huckabee in 2008 and Bush / McCain in 2000.

As was just being discussed on NPR, in 2000, Gore went into the first debate with Bush holding a five point lead.  After the debate, he was behind five points, and everyone expected Gore to destroy Bush in the debates before they actually happened.  Sounds like a familiar scenario, right?

Of course, I do not think Obama will be sighing and checking his watch… 

More so than what happens on stage tonight, what happens next really depends on media spin.  Not the partisan talking heads, but the producers, writers, editors, reporters and directors out there.

The media wants a story to tell.  If the election is pretty much settled a month out, that leaves four weeks of dead air time…  Which they will fill by trying to create the feeling that the race is much closer than it really is.  The problem?  People will start believing it, and everyone loves a come from behind underdog, right?

This is a process that will probably start tonight.

This thing is not over and Romney still has a real chance of taking office in January.

Why debate is crucial for Obama, too - CNN.com:

It would appear, then, that Obama can simply go for caution, choosing a clinch in the center of the ring over hard punches, and walking away with a tie. But on closer examination, Obama ought to be pressing for a victory, too.

In some polls over recent weeks, especially from key states, the president has now opened up a second possible path to re-election. For a long time, his campaign advisers have assumed that he would win but that his margin of victory would be narrow -- less than three points. Even now, his advisers -- even as they are quietly confident about the ultimate outcome -- are running scared, assuming the race will likely close significantly in the final weeks.

Debate coach: Obama, Romney are top performers - CNN.com:

If you've been hearing the spin, the only reason to watch the inevitable train wreck of the upcoming debates would be to see just how inept both President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are at debating. And that spin is self-criticism. Their own campaigns would have us believe that these two candidates can't piece together a complete sentence between the two of them.

But I'm here to tell you: It ain't so.

These are two of the better presidential debaters we've witnessed, and I'm anticipating excellent debates. If you haven't watched Obama, I can assure you that he more than held his own four years ago in the debates against John McCain.

And if you haven't seen Romney, then take my word for it. He debated poorly in only two of his (almost 20) debates this past year. His game is consistently solid.

THE RACE: Few knockout punches occur in debates - Yahoo! News:

But unlike election results or prize fights, there are seldom knock-out punches or clear-cut winners in debates. Sometimes it takes days for a consensus to emerge — if ever.

Richard Nixon's haggard appearance vs. John F. Kennedy's vigor is widely cited as contributing to a Kennedy victory in the first 1960 debate. But polls showed that was true mostly for those who watched it on TV, while those listening to the radio generally picked Nixon as victor. And Nixon did better in three later debates.

Few gaffes are as striking as President Gerald Ford's 1976 erroneous claim that Eastern Europe was not under Soviet domination. But Ford had held his own in an earlier debate, and many other factors contributed to his defeat by Jimmy Carter.

Michael Dukakis in 1988 and John Kerry in 2004 were generally deemed superior technical debaters — but both lost to a George Bush.

10 debate moments that mattered - CNN.com:

Goodwin describes 10 key presidential and vice presidential debates that made a difference:

Related Posts

Sunday, September 18, 2011

Google searching "democracy in distress"

Yes, this is how brain dead I have become this Sunday.  But it is interesting to me.  Only the Pearson Study Guide comes in higher on Google.

Here are some links that pop up other than my own...


Pearson American History Study Site...



From 2004...
Philip James: Democracy in distress | World news | guardian.co.uk:
If the US wants to restore confidence in its voting system it must learn lessons from the recent elections in Venezuela, writes Philip James
Philip James
guardian.co.uk, Friday 20 August 2004 12.18 EDT


A flikr photostream...

Our democracy is in Distress! by jarnocan

Our democracy is in Distress!, a photo by jarnocan on Flickr.

One from the rabid left wing...
democracy in distress – Oh!pinion: democracy in distress
Michigan replaces democracy with dictatorship
Apr 18th, 2011 by S.W. Anderson. 18 comments


"From the chambers of Congress to the legislatures of all the states, to various forms of county government down to the lowliest town council of the smallest hamlet, American government for more than 200 years has standardized on democracy, until now.

Under a radical-conservative, tea party governor and his legislative allies, Michigan has embarked on a path that replaces democratically elected local government with appointed managers — dictatorship at the least, potentially outright fascism at the worst."

Another one from the far side of the left...



Democracy In Distress"We the people have endured repeated abuses of power by the Executive Branch of our government, and the failure of Congress to stand up for what’s right.

  We’ve seen our nation led into war based on false premises and cynical half-truths. We’ve seen our good name disgraced by torture, secret prisons and profiteering. And we’ve seen our Constitution and laws ignored and violated.

  As a result our democracy has suffered at home, and our reputation has been tarnished abroad. America is less free and less secure. It is time to restore the core values of American democracy that made us a beacon of hope in a troubled world – freedom from tyranny, respect for individual liberty and human rights, and government based on the rule of law.

  It is time to right our country and reclaim our flag as the symbol of a democracy we can all be proud of.

  Today Common Cause launches Recapture the Flag, a campaign to unite us around the promise and hope of America. Please come to our website and sign the pledge below. "

One from 1998 and that whole flag burning amendment thing...
freedomforum.org: The flag amendment: A symbol of democracy in distress"...a long line of Supreme Court decisions affirming the First Amendment right of American citizens to burn the U.S. flag as a form of expression.
Most Americans disagree with the Supreme Court. So do most members of Congress. For several years now, members of Congress have been trying to secure passage of a constitutional amendment to circumvent the court and to allow the punishment of those who desecrate the American flag.
Each term, the passage of such an amendment becomes more of a possibility. Last year, the House passed a proposed amendment by an overwhelming margin. Now the Senate is ready to take it up with the introduction of a proposed amendment earlier this week. During the 104th Congress, this effort fell only three votes short of the necessary two-thirds majority in the Senate after comfortably making it through the House. This year, that three-vote margin may not be there. If the proposed amendment is approved by the Senate, it goes to the state legislatures, where ratification is assured since 49 already have endorsed it.

If that happens, for the first time in its two centuries of existence, the Bill of Rights will have been amended. That is a terrible price to pay for the privilege of punishing those who believe the First Amendment means what it says."
Some Bengali political shenanigans...
Democracy in Distress : The Murder of Madan Tamang « Signpost : Siliguri" The brutal assassination of Madan Tamang, President of Akhil Bharatiya Gorkha League (ABGL) in broad daylight by an armed gang on 21st May is a body blow to democracy in the trouble-torn, three  mountainous sub-divisions of Darjeeling district in West Bengal.

Two days after the murder the police fear that the main accused, all members of Bimal Gurung-led Gorkha Janmukti Morcha’s (GJM) frontal organizations, have taken shelter in neighbouring Sikkim.

Laxman Pradhan , General Secretary of ABGL has lodged an FIR accusing Bimal Gurung, his wife Asha Gurung and several other GJM central committee members including Roshan Giri, Harka Bahadur Chhetri and Binay Tamang  of criminal conspiracy.

It is now widely believed that Mr. Tamang’s fearless opposition to the fascist and corrupt leadership of GJM had infuriated them. GJM’s stranglehold on the hills was getting threatened by the coming together of several anti-GJM outfits including the influential Communist Party of Revolutionary Marxists (CPRM) under the leadership of Mr. Tamang.
"

That's it for now.  I am a little surprised at the lack of Tea Party links on the first couple Google pages.  I guess, after eight years of Bush, they need more than three years of Obama to catch up on their hit counts.

Sunday, December 26, 2004

Wherefore Art Thou, Ohio: Election Reform is the New Black

I spent my 37 seconds searching for news on the Ohio election activities today and found… Nothing.

I admit that I took my eye off of this ball, focusing more on Washington State, but still…

There should be something about Ohio out there, right?

Media bias = Silence.

Although I did find this interesting article on Salon.com:

Third World Democracy: The real problem with the American election system isn't fraud, it's good old-fashioned incompetence. And that's something we can fix -- if we have the will.

Big quote from the article:

But it can be fixed ... especially if activists take on the challenge. Before the election, many people -- people like Lockshin -- felt irrelevant with respect to politics in America. Now, after the election, many Americans are distressed by the results. Why not channel this despair into something productive for the future? ... Why not work to reform the abysmal American electoral system?

...

Unfortunately, in the past couple of weeks, while the Internet has been consumed by theories of a stolen election, the efforts of activists like Rodriguez-Taseff and of all the volunteers who manned the polls on Election Day have largely been overlooked. Focusing on the long-term reform of the system is not sexy, Rodriguez-Taseff concedes; it doesn't promise the kind of excitement you get from looking into ways that might overturn Nov. 2's results.

...

There should have been a big push for comprehensive election reform after the 2000 election in the United States, but that didn't happen. "Other things cut in line -- September 11, gay marriage, the war, you name it," Chapin says. Now, Chapin hopes, election reform will creep back onto the agenda.

Yet it's likely that the only way lawmakers will fix our elections is if citizens press for it -- and only if they press for it constantly, in a nonpartisan manner, as part of a broad effort to remake the way we vote rather than to reverse the results of the last election.

And for all the people who were so passionately involved in that election, what better way to spend the next four years than to dedicate your efforts to remaking our democracy? If you think the American system is broken, if you've felt alienated and abused by recent political affairs, doing the good, honest, hard work of fixing things may feel quite refreshing, activists say. Lockshin, the Berkeley student, offers this testimonial: "Now that I've worked on this with Election Protection, I'm sure I'll be doing it again. I'll be doing it every year, till they stop needing me."

I think I may have linked to this article before, but I am too lazy to review all of my posts this morning to check.

But I agree, election reform is the new black...

In the Salon article, I did find this link...

www.verifiedvoting.org

On this site, I found the following tidbit on Ohio...

The Ohio legislature passed a law that requires that ALL DREs in Ohio have a voter-verified paper audit trail (V-VPAT) by January 2006. Citizens' Alliance for Secure Elections is planning to file a lawsuit to stop the purchase of any DREs in 2004 that do not have a V-VPAT.

Sexy stuff, this election reform jihad... But necessary.

Friday, December 17, 2004

Starting Over in Ohio…

In Ohio, the original Supreme Court case filed on Monday challenging the election was thrown out on a technical issue, but it was refiled today.

The group filed the request Monday, the day the Electoral College cast votes for Bush. Chief Justice Thomas Moyer of the state Supreme Court threw out the complaint Thursday, saying the voters improperly included a second election challenge in the complaint.

Anyway, the lead on the AP story regarding the Ohio recount recalls images from Florida in 2000, with “two teams of Republican and Democratic election workers held punch-card ballots up to the light Wednesday and whispered back and forth as they tried to divine the voters' intent from a few hanging chads.”

According to Ohio Law:

Workers must hand-count 3 percent of ballots. If the results match the certified results exactly, all other ballots can be recounted by machine. If the totals are off, all ballots must be counted by hand, adding days or weeks to the process.

What I am unclear on is how the paper-less voting machines effect this process. Still, I suspect that we’ll be waiting for those “days or weeks” to find out the new Ohio totals.

Another interesting tidbit, not a new one, but always a bit disturbing. “Statewide, about 92,000 ballots cast in last month's presidential election failed to record a vote for president, most of them on punch-card systems.” Dosen’t this just automatically raise eyebrows? You cannot tell me that people show up at the polls and say to themselves, “Well, I was going to vote on the Presidency, but since I get to vote with punch cards, I’ll skip that section of the ballot.”

Now, there could be something to this. What are the demographics of these precincts? I have a feeling that there could have been a higher percentage of abstentions in blue collar neighborhoods, where people are too disgusted with the process to vote for either of the candidates. Unfortunately, I fear the flaw with this theory is that disenfranchised blue collar people tend to abstain by not voting at all.

And finally…

It seems that workers for Triad, the vendor for some of the vote counting software used in Ohio, showed up at precincts and tinkered with the voting machines before the recount. The company says that this is just the standard procedure…

Brett Rapp, president of Xenia, Ohio-based TRIAD, said it's standard procedure to prepare the machines for a recount so they only tally the presidential race. He said company representatives have worked on computers in every county that uses TRIAD software.

However, “a sworn statement from Sherole Eaton, [Hocking] county's deputy director of elections,” makes these visits sound a little more concerning. In this AP article, the parts of the statement reported sound fairly ambiguous, but I have heard more extensive reports on this statement, and the incident she reports definitely sounds a bit more sinister.

Something is being done about this…

Rep. John Conyers D-Mich., a senior Democrat on the House Judiciary, urged the FBI to investigate possible election tampering in Hocking County involving an employee of TRIAD Governmental Systems Inc., the company that wrote the voting software used in 41 of Ohio's 88 counties.

I suppose we’ll have to wait and see if anything comes of this. It cannot be allowed to stop with just one Representitive urging an investigation.

Not this year, not any year.

Investigate the Vote
Ohio Voters Refile Election Challenge
Hanging Chads Make Reappearance in Ohio

Is the Fork Stuck In Christine Gregoire Yet?

The elusive couple dozen votes seem to be beyond reach for the Washington Democrat in that state’s newest sport, the eternal recount. Today, a judge sided with the Republicans, saying that several hundred ballots from the Seattle area that were mistakenly not counted in the first two counts could not be included in the new count. There is a very possible chance that this will toss the keys for the Olympia Goveneror’s Mansion over to Republican Dino Rossi.

[Pierce County Superior Court Judge Stephanie ]Arend granted the GOP a temporary restraining order to stop elections workers from taking the newly discovered ballots out of their outer envelopes, which bear the voter's signature. County elections officials had said ballots would not be separated from their security envelopes until the lawsuit was decided.

Jack Oxford is one of the voters whose ballots Arend said should not be counted.

"She said, 'Jack, your vote doesn't count,'" said Oxford, 50, an electrical field supervisor from Enumclaw. "I'm very upset, very distressed."

Still, King County (the state’s most liberal) and Spokane County have not finished their counts yet, and the Democrats do plan on appealing the decision to the State Supreme court.

Time will tell…

Isn’t the foundation of our democracy the principal that every vote counts? Oh, how quaint of me.

Judge blocks count of newly discovered ballots in governor's race
Judge Blocks Count of New Wash. Ballots

Wednesday, December 15, 2004

The godofthebasement Speaks...

He really must hate America... He posted the following rant as a comment on the blog awhile back, but I thought it was time to elevate his words. I know who he is. He does answer prayers if offered the proper sacrifice...

In honor of Ohio, I thought I would give up this burnt offering...

Well I guess I'll start since I don't feel like doing any more real work this afternoon.

Follow the conspiracy trail:Several counties in Florida, Ohio, and Texas have followed this pattern:

First: Electronic voting machines had votes registered before the polls opened. Official explanation: Each individual machine has an internal counter for total votes ever cast on the machine, that count has no effect on results of this election. My call: Plausible, but still a technical glitch that needs to be fixed before electronic voting can be trusted.

One item specific to Texas: Many users of electronic voting machines that print out a "receipt" found that although they had voted strait Democrat, the machines recorded their presidential vote as "Bush" even though all their other votes registered correctly as Democrat. There are thousands of documented instances of this happening in Texas in this election. Those who noticed the error were able to get their ballot corrected, but what of those who didn't notice? And what about the majority of electronic voting machines that don't print a "receipt?"

Next: While election results are being counted, more votes for Bush are recorded than total votes cast. Official explanation: It's a running total, these numbers change and the final result will add up. My call: Skeptical, see below.

Then: More votes cast for Bush than there are people registered Republican. Official explanation: crossover votes by Democrats and independents for Bush. My call: Plausible on the face, but how many Democrats do they really want us to believe voted for Bush?

Finally: There are counties in Ohio, Florida, Texas, and a few other southern states where BUSH RECIEVED MORE VOTES THAN THERE ARE RESIDENTS IN THE COUNTY! Official explanation: Just a glitch that will be cleaned up. Republican explanation (I'm not making this up, it was said by a Republican PR person on NPR): The Democrats rigged these counties to make the Republicans look bad! My call: Bullshit.

Analysis: Sorry people, I'm not going play nice and roll over like douche-bag Kerry, I'm pissed. The Bush "victory" is a result of widespread election fraud by the Republicans on a nationwide scale. Period. Bush can shove his "mandate" up his...

Investigating the 2004 Vote in Ohio: Undermining Public Confidence in the Electoral System Itself

This morning the Ohio election issues seemed to pop up onto the radar.

Of course, the Special Section in the Cleveland Plain Dealer was most helpful, giving pages of news, analysis and opinion… Uh, no. That didn’t happen. All I found on their web site was one staff editorial: "MoveOn.Now: The zealots who refuse to accept Ohio's vote count risk undermining confidence in the system itself"

They caught us. Undermining confidence in the system itself. Seriously, this is exactly what we are trying to do. We are casting our no confidence vote in the system over the last two presidential elections. They seem to think that we are nothing but sore losers, even though most people who are lobbying for investigations into the 2004 election do believe that Bush probably did win this election. The concern is not over the results. The concern is with how these results were achieved.

The Washington Post, in an excellent article outlining these problems in Ohio and Florida, notes:

While some promote conspiratorial theories, most have a straightforward bottom line. "A lot of people left in the four hours I waited," recalled [Tanya] Thivener, the mortgage broker from Columbus. "A lot of them were young black men who were saying over and over: 'We knew this would happen.'

"How," she asked, "is that good for democracy?"

However, this is how these concerns are being portrayed by the editorial staff of the Plain Dealer:

Most Americans, including the vast majority of those who supported John Kerry for president, have grasped the most basic reality of Election Day 2004:

George W. Bush was re-elected. He won roughly 60.7 million votes and carried 31 states with 286 electoral votes. Ohio's 20 Electoral College members formally cast ballots for the president Monday in the Statehouse.

Unfortunately, there is a small, but very vocal, group of Americans who refuse to accept this reality. They argue that what appear to be routine technical glitches and human errors were in fact an elaborate conspiracy to skew the election results. They claim that long lines at a few polling places, the rather unsurprising result of high voter interest, were evidence of a systematic campaign to discourage participation. In short, having failed to get the outcome they wanted at the polls, they have decided to mount an irresponsible campaign aimed at undermining public confidence in the electoral system itself.

Let’s take a look at this. “Routine technical glitches and human errors.” Is this what they are calling the fact that “[i]n one Columbus, Ohio suburb, election officials have acknowledged that electronic voting machines credited Bush with winning 4,258 votes, even though only 638 people voted there?” In another case, “25 electronic machines transferred an unknown number of votes for Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) to the Bush column.”

And the lines? The Washington Post led their piece with the following:

Tanya Thivener's is a tale of two voting precincts in Franklin County. In her city neighborhood, which is vastly Democratic and majority black, the 38-year-old mortgage broker found a line snaking out of the precinct door.

She stood in line for four hours -- one hour in the rain -- and watched dozens of potential voters mutter in disgust and walk away without casting a ballot. Afterward, Thivener hopped in her car and drove to her mother's house, in the vastly Republican and majority white suburb of Harrisburg. How long, she asked, did it take her to vote?

Fifteen minutes, her mother replied.

Undermining confidence in the system itself? Let’s hope so. It seems like there must be something wrong with the system. Unfortunately, most of the mainstream media seems to agree with the Plain Dealer that those of us arguing for a full review of this election are nothing but zealots and sore losers. They show this by the obvious bias and tone of their coverage of these issues. The tone is silence; the bias is that it is not news worthy, at least not as news worthy as the Peterson Death Sentence.

But that is probably just my “endless sour grapes.”

So, what is being done? The Plain Dealer calls for “common-sense solutions.” They even offer some suggestions:

Clearly it would help if groups that register new voters did not deliver thousands of applications at the last minute. Ohio also needs an early voting system to relieve at least some of the pressure on Election Day. And rather than retreating from electronic voting machines, the state needs to find a secure system and back it up with a paper record.

Their first point makes me a bit nervous, should we just not register those voters? But beyond that, the other two are obvious changes that need to happen. In the case of the voting machines, it disturbs me that such an obvious problem with such an obvious solution seemed to be labeled such a non-issue before the election.

As for what is actually happening in Ohio… The Green and Libertarian Parties are having the ballots recounted. On Monday a case was argued before the Ohio Supreme Court calling for the court to “reconsider the election results, accusing Bush's campaign of ‘high-tech vote stealing.’”

From today’s AP article on Ohio:

[T]he challengers noticed Bush generally received more votes in counties that use optical-scan voting machines and questioned whether the machines were calibrated to record votes for Bush.

The challengers also claim there were disparities in vote totals for Democrats, too few voting machines in Democrat-leaning precincts, organized campaigns directing voters to the wrong polling place and confusion over the counting of provisional ballots by voters whose names did not appear in the records at polling places.


Also today, a federal judge ruled against the ACLU, who was arguing that voting rights are denied to those who use punch-card ballots.

From the same AP article mentioned above:

The American Civil Liberties Union argued that the punch-card system is error-prone and ballots are more likely to go uncounted than votes cast in other ways. The group claimed Ohio violated the voting rights of blacks, who predominantly live in punch-card counties.
U.S. District Judge David D. Dowd Jr. disagreed.

"All voters in a county, regardless of race, use the same voting system to cast a ballot, and no one is denied the opportunity to cast a valid vote because of their race," Dowd said in his ruling Tuesday.
Moveon.org has a page that makes it easy for people to express their concern about the 2004 election to Congress. Please visit them and let your reps know that the questions about this election must be answered.

Move On: Investigate the Vote

Several Factors Contributed to 'Lost' Voters in Ohio

Ohio Judge Rules Punch-Card Voting Fair

MoveOn.Now: The zealots who refuse to accept Ohio's vote count risk undermining confidence in the system itself
Update: December 15, 2004 - 8:37 PM
Thanks to the Randi Rhodes Website, I have a link to the Curtis Affidavit on Yang Enterprises and vote tampering. This is a scary, must read document.

Monday, December 13, 2004

Big Day in Ohio

Lot's of porn in today's posts. Not much about Ohio. Supposedly, this was a big day there with a lot going down regarding the election. I am sure you are sick of hearing all about the hearings and court filings after hours of endless news coverage on these events, but I was going to write about them any way.

I admit, I didn't look very hard, but since I had no mention of these events appear in any of the news sites I scanned today, I never got around to posting about Ohio's big day.

Maybe I will tomorrow. Now it is bedtime.

I'll sign off with this...

Tin soldiers and Nixon's coming, we're finally on our own this summer I hear the drumming, four dead in Ohio... four dead in Ohio.

A Small, Subpoena-Less Step: Senate Democrats to Investigate Bush Administration

Wow, I actually got this one off one of the politics feeds I have on "My Yahoo."

Senate Dems Plan Investigatory Hearings

This is actually the best news that I have heard in a while. This will essentially be an indepandant investigation lacking actual Senate support, and supoena power, but at least the Democrats are girding up their loins and actually saying, essentially, "This stinks and we are going to poke it with a stick and see if we can get it to ooze."

I fully expect the networks to put their full attention on these hearings when they get started now that the Peterson Matter is resolved... Ah, oops. I forgot about the appeals. And Jacko. And...

Saturday, December 04, 2004

Kerry's Extra 16 Million

I am repeating this here from comments I made to my earlier post on the Washington State hand recount.

Okay, I am commenting on my own post, but what the hell... And I do mean what the hell! As I was reading over this post, I was left wondering why a canidate that narrowly lost the presidancy had almost a quarter of a million dollars left over in the war chest?Now, I am the first one to go off about money being the Great Satan of American politics, and I really do not believe that one more ad buy in Ohio or Florida would have changed anything...I suppose short of giving a buck to 200,000 people in Ohio to vote Kerry, it probably wouldn't have changed the election, but it still makes me wonder if everything was done that could have been done.

16 million is a lot more than a quarter of a million. He's getting some heat from other Democrats for this...

Kerry aides said the money was set aside to cover late-arriving bills and any legal challenges to the presidential outcome. But other Democrats said the money, which was raised during Kerry's primary-election campaign and could not be spent on his own general-election campaign due to federal limits, should have been given to other candidates to spend.

One top Kerry aide said that after all bills are paid, the primary account is likely to be down to about $14 million. Approximately $4 million will be used to defend against allegations that the Kerry campaign illegally coordinated with independent groups.



Donna Brazile, a Democratic strategist who managed Gore's 2000 presidential campaign, said she was ''totally shocked" to learn that so much money was left over. Aside from Kerry's defeat, Democrats lost two seats in the House and four in the Senate this year.''I've never heard of having that amount of money left over," she said. ''This is not about John Kerry. This is about how do you deploy resources. We kept saying, 'This is the greatest, most important election in our lifetime.' Yet we have money left over? I don't know what else to say."



Okay, there are some quotes. The link to the article is below. I don't know what I feel about this in the long run, especially when it is Donna Brazille complaining. I still haven't worked out my feelings about her management of the Gore campaign (even though she did get the win, I suppose, on that one), but I am pretty sure they are all negative.

[Note: I took the link to this story off because it was messing up the layout on the blog. E-mail if you would like to read the piece. mailto:admin@democracyindistress.com

UPDATE: December 28, 2004 - 8:35 AM

On Steve Gilliard's News Blog...

Duh, we don't kill babies, we kill them and eat them

Wow, I'm not the only one who thinks [Donna Brazille]'s both incompetent and an idiot. If she can't explain a core belief of the people who pay her, then why the fuck are they paying her?

She is simply not competent at her job and no one will say so.

This is in response to Brazille: I'm Not Good Enough To Convince My Own Family on Patridiot.

So, it is not just me.

Election Day Hangovers

I've been meaning to write something about the election hangovers... Not in the literal sense, though I am sure there were many of those on November 3, but just the lingering let down feeling.

Many people I know went through a media blackout period where they did not want to hear about politics at all. Myself, I even had a hard time watching The Daily Show for a while. I got mad, set this site up, and then went into my slump and had little stomach for doing the research necessary to load the blog and the boards with content.

Anyway, I am slowly emerging from this, and today I found a USA Today article with the headline "Election Day hangovers remain across USA."

I wondered if I could get some good quotes, but then I noticed the sub-head, "Computer glitch, dead heat, recounts and court rulings play part in undecided races," and the lead...

It's been a month since America went to the polls, but in scattered places across the map, the election isn't over.

Maybe I will crawl back into my media blackout cave for a while.

Click here for the article.

Washington Democrats Rule!

They pulled it off.

The Washington State Democrats delivered a $730,000 check to Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed's office on Friday as payment for the hand recount, the first in the state's history.
It seems a bit weird that the State requires cash to do its job, but I suppose that they are a bit strapped for cash in this economy these days. Also, I am guessing that there is some logic in forcing the party to pay for it just in case they are being a sore loser. That is not the case when the certified results show a 42 vote difference between the two candidates.

Remember, this 42 vote difference was the result of the machine recount. It came down to 42 votes from 261 votes.

Anyway, it appears that the idea in Washington is a bit like the Replay Rule in the NFL. If you request a review of the call and it goes your way, it costs you nothing. However, if you stall the game and the refs got it right the first time, that’s going to cost you a time out. In this case “According to state election rules, a hand recount must be financed by the party requesting it, although the state will reimburse the money if the recount reverses the tally.”

Some thanks on this one also should go to the Kerry Campaign.

Democrats scrambled to raise the money for the recount, which was supported by a $200,000 contribution from Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's unused campaign funds.
42 votes out of 2.8 million cast in the election. What do the Republicans have to say about this? "The Democrats are trying to steal the election," said Chis Vance, the Washington State Republican party chair.

Republicans wouldn’t know anything about that, now, would they? Sorry, cheap shot.

The argument they should be using is the one from 2000 in Florida. It went something along the lines of, “Well, you can’t just count over and over and over again until you get a result you are happy with. At some point you just have to say it’s enough and just stop and move on.”

However, to quote Dan Rather from the 2000 election, "This race is tight like a too-small bathing suit on a too-long ride home from the beach."

It seems like the most troubling aspect of this whole ordeal, just like the one in Florida, is that the tallies do change with every recount. Is every vote being counted each and every time? Is there an election official out there who is forgetting to carry a one every time? Or, everyone’s biggest fear, “Yes Mr. Rossi, no one will find that bag o’ ballots from Seattle. I got them stashed under my desk in my office… Hey, Paul, get out of my office, will ya’? I got stuff in there you don’t want to see.”

Supposedly, these were the sorts of issues that electronic voting machines was supposed to resolve. Unfortunately, those come with their own, new issues. In Washington, King County took a look at these machines and essentially laughed at them and moved on. Probably a good call.

Now they actually have ballots that they can recount.

It is unknown if this will actually put the Democrat, State Attorney General Christine Gregoire, into office, but it is good to see that the party isn't just rolling over and conceeding another loss in 2004. These battles must be joined. City by county by state by the nation... No more rolling over and conceeding one seat after another to the Republicans.

One final note: I pulled the Dan Rather quote from here. A page full of his election comments. Funny. I am going to miss Dan.

Friday, December 03, 2004

Washington Needs Your Wome...I mean CASH!

No political ranting and raving this morning.

I came out of my post election media down period that crept up on me and kept me mostly out of the loop for a couple weeks and this week real life got in the way of me doing much on this blog. I did, however, tweak the home page for democracyindistress.com so it is not quite as dull as it was.

Let's see... Bu-bye Mr. Ridge. I thought this had already been announced, but I guess not. It is just not a surprise. I saw that there is a name out already for his replacement, but I do not know anything about this new Director yet.

More troops to Iraq before their election? Another surprise. Uh, not.

Today is the last day for the Democrats in Washington State to file for a recount. They have to pay for this re-count. This morning they were still about $100,000 short for a full, statewide recount.

Remember, this Govenorship may be decided by less than 50 votes, and it seems that there are still a decent number of ballots that may not have been counted. I am not sure of the details, been to busy this morning to do the research, but...

If you read this in time and can donate money: Give! Give! Give!

Give here!

So... That is it for now.

Thursday, November 18, 2004

Kerry Wins!

Interesting graphic I found somewhere... Appologies for the theviery, if noticed.



Tuesday, November 09, 2004

Lowering the Bar: A Mandate for GWB?

Even as I am writing this there is a talking head (Joe Walkins, Republican Strategist) on CNN demanding that the Bush Administration has a mandate because “they won by three and a half million votes!”

I don’t have the time this morning to do the research but I am pretty sure it would take only a few minutes on-line to track down some quotes from 1996 and even 1992 talking about how Bill Clinton’s victories in those years did not constitute a mandate, though both margins in the popular vote far outweigh the margin of victory this year.

In fact, not counting the ugly stepchild of the 2000 election, the popular vote this year was the closest race since Jimmy Carter defeated Ford 28 years ago in the 1976 election by 1,682,790 votes.

So, I believe, according to Republican spin, just winning the popular vote is now a mandate for your platform.

Of course, the case could be made that the mandate comes from not only the Presidential election, but also from the Republican gains made in the House and Senate and in many state and local races too. It was the loss of Democrat seats in Congress that pretty much nixed the idea of Clinton having a mandate in 1996 when he won the popular vote by 8,203,602 votes.

But they are not. They are holding on to their mandate because 3,510,358 more people apparently voted for Bush.

Here are the margins of victory in the Popular Vote going back to 1976:

2004 – 3,510,358 – Bush over Kerry
2000 – 539,947 – Gore over Bush
1996 – 8,203,602 – Clinton over Dole
1992 – 5,805,344 – Clinton over Bush
1988 – 7,077,023 – Bush over Dukakis
1984 – 16,877,890 – Reagan over Mondale
1980 – 7,417,813 – Reagan over Carter
1976 – 1,682,790 – Carter over Ford

How come, every time a pundit starts going off about the Bush Administration’s 3.5 million vote mandate they are not immediately challenged with these numbers? Or have they been and I just haven’t noticed? This morning, the Democrat talking head, responding to Walkins’ near chant of a 3.5 million vote mandate for his team was pretty much left sitting there going, “there is no mandate. No there isn’t... There is not.”

I believe that most Democrats, when challenged with the fuzzy logic of these Republican spin artists, believe that the American public is intelligent enough to see the absurdity of the argument. And they are. But the Republicans base their strategy on Advertising and Marketing principals, which play on people’s psychology and make the facts mostly irrelevant.

Stay on message, repeat the message, and eventually, it will become the truth. And the media follows. A week after the election, a week of having every Republican spin artist in the country drilling the mandate message to the people and to the media, the conversation it turning into what the Bush Administration will do with their mandate, not if there is even one in the first place.

Imagine if the Democrats could get this focused, and if they, on top of this, were basing their arguments on fact and logic. Could the Republicans counter this?

Monday, November 08, 2004

11-02-04: The Election of George W. Bush as President of the United States Of America…

So, it happened... Now what do we do about it? More than that, what do we do with the real threat of losing the Democratic Party as a viable voice of opposition to the Republican controlled Executive and Legislative branches of our Federal Government, and to increasing Republican control of our State and Local Governments, as well?

On November 2, 2004 we lost a battle, but we did not lose the war. However, we must not roll over. We must not lose track of that tremendous store of energy that the Democrats mustered for this election. At the same time, we also must take a hard look at why the Presidency was lost and at why seats in both houses of Congress were lost.

We must look at, explore and understand why the vast majority of the country comes up red in the Presidential Election every four years. We must understand why the Republican Party always seems to control the debate in these elections; why the Democrats are always responding to their attacks on the character of the candidates instead of the Republicans responding to attacks on their stance on the issues.

It is only a few days since the election, but it is not too early to start focusing on the future. Rightfully or wrongly, there will be a bloodbath in the Democratic Party power structure. In the gap created by this, the people need to step in and demand change.

democracyindistress.com has been thrown together quickly. It will improve, and hopefully visitors to this site will take advantage of the message boards and the other tools here to suggest improvements. Until more content is added, please take advantage of the Message Boards and the Blog… Join the conversation. Add ideas.

This is our country. Our voices demand to be heard. We can make it happen.