Kennedy: Repubicans rigged 2004 election

[whitesoxfan101]

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/104...election_stolen

 

It's a long story, so I won't repost it quoted, but check out the link and read it. All I have to say is....Mr. Kennedy might want to check out the 1960 presidential vote and more specificially, what happened in Texas and ESPECIALLY Illinois that year. Without the voter fraud he accuses and talks down about, JFK never makes it to the White House. Unfortunately, the machine and Daley won JFK Illinois, and despite it being only a short time, JFK became president and the rest is infamy and narrowly avoided disaster.

 

I dislike Bush as much as the next guy, but for anybody, ESPECIALLY a Kennedy to say the election was rigged, is pretty sad. Religious nuts and right wingers getting out the vote, along with Kerry making cruicial errors in his campaign, are why Bush won....not fraud.

[Rex Kickass]

There are lots of arguments to substantiate widespread fraud in Ohio in 2004 - and fully investigated may indeed cast the actual difference of votes between Bush and Kerry into doubt regarding that election. Between what seems to be a concentrated plan of urban voter disenfranchisement and some serious questions about the reliability of the electronic voting machines, it is entirely possible that some serious fraud occurred on the presidential level in that state. Given that at the time, there wasn't a single Dem holding statewide office - the finger of suspicion seems to point in the direction of the GOP.

 

However, I don't think the fraud was enough to shift the balance.

 

1960 was a stolen election. So was 2000. 2004, I doubt it. Frankly Bush won that election by over 2 million votes - I don't want another president to win electoral votes but not the popular vote frankly. Even if the alternative seems vastly better today.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Methinks Kennedy had just a LITTLE too much to drink before he said that. It’s a little late for sour grapes.

[whitesoxfan101]

There are lots of arguments to substantiate widespread fraud in Ohio in 2004 - and fully investigated may indeed cast the actual difference of votes between Bush and Kerry into doubt regarding that election. Between what seems to be a concentrated plan of urban voter disenfranchisement and some serious questions about the reliability of the electronic voting machines, it is entirely possible that some serious fraud occurred on the presidential level in that state. Given that at the time, there wasn't a single Dem holding statewide office - the finger of suspicion seems to point in the direction of the GOP.

 

However, I don't think the fraud was enough to shift the balance.

 

1960 was a stolen election. So was 2000. 2004, I doubt it. Frankly Bush won that election by over 2 million votes - I don't want another president to win electoral votes but not the popular vote frankly. Even if the alternative seems vastly better today.

 

I would say I agree with all of that. 1960 and 2000 were stolen elections indeed, but to say 2004 was is pretty uneducated.

[Balta1701]

Salon.com had a good reply to this RS piece that I linked to last time someone brought up that article. Edited June 6, 2006 by Balta1701

[mr_genius]

oh yea, they totally stole it dudes

 

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

oh yea, they totally stole it dudes

 

 

 

I know a certain someone who has a hat just like that.

 

 

LOL!

[Balta1701]

oh yea, they totally stole it dudes

 

The one problem I have with that statement, and in fact Kennedy's entire piece, is that there were genuine electoral problems in Ohio, including the disenfranchisement of thousands, probably tens of thousands. If the election in that state had come down to a thousand votes, like Florida in 00, then it really wouldn't be possible to say who actually won. But IMO, the margin of defeat in that state was just too high for it to really be another disputed election.

 

The big problem though is that the genuine problems that Ohio had in its election wind up glossed over in messes like this. You have 1 side saying "Oh it was stolen!", the other side posting tin foil hat pictures, and then the end result is that the state, and in fact the nation, is simply never able to come together and actually create procedures that would allow for accurate and fair elections every time, despite the fact that I would say most people would think that's a pretty important goal.

Edited June 6, 2006 by Balta1701

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

The one problem I have with that statement is that there were genuine electoral problems in Ohio, including the disenfranchisement of thousands, probably tens of thousands. If the election in that state had come down to a thousand votes, like Florida in 00, then it really wouldn't be possible to say who actually won. But IMO, the margin of defeat in that state was just too high for it to really be another disputed election.

 

The big problem though is that the genuine problems that Ohio had in its election wind up glossed over in messes like this. You have 1 side saying "Oh it was stolen!", the other side posting tin foil hat pictures, and then the end result is that the state, and in fact the nation, is simply never able to come together and actually create procedures that would allow for accurate and fair elections every time, despite the fact that I would say most people would think that's a pretty important goal.

 

 

It doesn't matter what system is in place you're always going to have a degree of fraud and irregularities in every election. BTW. Regarding election fraud, I am willing to bet that Democrats in the Cleveland area and Cuhyogha ( sp ) county were responsible for every bit as much fraud as their Republican counterparts elsewhere in the state.

[Balta1701]

It doesn't matter what system is in place you're always going to have a degree of fraud and irregularities in every election. BTW. Regarding election fraud, I am willing to bet that Democrats in the Cleveland area and Cuhyogha ( sp ) county were responsible for every bit as much fraud as their Republican counterparts elsewhere in the state.

See, I don't think that's really the case. Lots of countries around the world are able to get by with far fewer questions about voting machines, missed votes, people unjustly turned away, and outright fraud than we've become adapted to, but we've sort of either just become accustomed to it or thrown money at whatever company gives the best campaign contributions, and so we've really failed to build a system here with a low margin of error.

[mr_genius]

It doesn't matter what system is in place you're always going to have a degree of fraud and irregularities in every election. BTW. Regarding election fraud, I am willing to bet that Democrats in the Cleveland area and Cuhyogha ( sp ) county were responsible for every bit as much fraud as their Republican counterparts elsewhere in the state.

 

^^^

 

the Democrats were just as shady in the 2000 election as the Republicans, i don't buy this whole "stolen election" bs.

 

i live in chicago, i know for a fact democrats know damn well how to cheat during elections.

 

i think my main problem is that democrats will set up a system in their area and when it doesn't work they want to blame Republicans (aka, butterfly ballots in 2000).

[Gregory Pratt]

It bothers me whenever I hear Democrats claim that Kerry was close to a mandate because, "switch a few thousand votes in Ohio and he's the President!" Yeah? Switch a few thousand votes in a few other states and the Electoral Vote is a landslide for Bush. Bush won by three million votes, it wasn't even close in that sense.

 

I really hate that Ohio "I'd have been President if I'd have won it, so Democrats had a mandate!" bulls***.

 

And I'm a Democrat. I just get sick of hearing that all the time on TV. "Let's not forget, Kerry was a hundred thousand votes away" in Ohio, but three million nationally.

 

I'd have thought it the most beautiful of ironies if Kerry had lost the Popular Vote to Bush but won, but I'd have disliked it all the same.

 

It's a tad off-topic, I know, but it's a tad on-topic, too.

 

(To be more concise on THIS subject: no fraud, kthnx. Problems like in most states during elections, but no major rigging going on.)

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

It bothers me whenever I hear Democrats claim that Kerry was close to a mandate because, "switch a few thousand votes in Ohio and he's the President!" Yeah? Switch a few thousand votes in a few other states and the Electoral Vote is a landslide for Bush. Bush won by three million votes, it wasn't even close in that sense.

 

I really hate that Ohio "I'd have been President if I'd have won it, so Democrats had a mandate!" bulls***.

 

And I'm a Democrat. I just get sick of hearing that all the time on TV. "Let's not forget, Kerry was a hundred thousand votes away" in Ohio, but three million nationally.

 

I'd have thought it the most beautiful of ironies if Kerry had lost the Popular Vote to Bush but won, but I'd have disliked it all the same.

 

It's a tad off-topic, I know, but it's a tad on-topic, too.

 

(To be more concise on THIS subject: no fraud, kthnx. Problems like in most states during elections, but no major rigging going on.)

 

 

If the idea of President Kerry didn't make my skin crawl I would certainly enjoy the delicious irony of the situation.

[Gregory Pratt]

If the idea of President Kerry didn't make my skin crawl I would certainly enjoy the delicious irony of the situation.

 

Don't hate him cause he's beautiful!

[NorthSideSox72]

The idea that either Bush or Kerry, winning the 2004 election by a slim margin, would have a mandate is laughable. A "clear mandate", as Bush claimed to have, does not come from winning an election 51-49.

[Gregory Pratt]

The idea that either Bush or Kerry, winning the 2004 election by a slim margin, would have a mandate is laughable. A "clear mandate", as Bush claimed to have, does not come from winning an election 51-49.

 

That's right, of course, but losing by three million votes and then boasting that with a mild shift in Ohio you'd have been President really annoys me, and that, specifically, was what I was commenting on. I do agree with yours too, though.

 

It's why George Bush was dragged by the balls over Social Security. He took a 51-49 Victory to mean Do As You Please and was in for a rude awakening. Of course, it doesn't help him that he hardly campaigned on the issue of SS Reform, although if he had, he'd have lost the Presidency.

 

It's funny how people think that being elected gives them the mandate to do as they please, whatever it may be.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

That's right, of course, but losing by three million votes and then boasting that with a mild shift in Ohio you'd have been President really annoys me, and that, specifically, was what I was commenting on. I do agree with yours too, though.

 

It's why George Bush was dragged by the balls over Social Security. He took a 51-49 Victory to mean Do As You Please and was in for a rude awakening. Of course, it doesn't help him that he hardly campaigned on the issue of SS Reform, although if he had, he'd have lost the Presidency.

 

It's funny how people think that being elected gives them the mandate to do as they please, whatever it may be.

 

 

Its a tragedy that SS reform was put to bed by the Democrats and their asinine scare tactics. Genuine reform would enable millions of Americans to build some real wealth instead of consigning themselves to poverty in their old age but oh well.

[Gregory Pratt]

Its a tragedy that SS reform was put to bed by the Democrats and their asinine scare tactics. Genuine reform would enable millions of Americans to build some real wealth instead of consigning themselves to poverty in their old age but oh well.

 

Some sort of reform is in order, and I'm very personally open to Bush's ideas on it. Personally, I'm fond of what Paul O'Neill, his first Treasury Secretary (run out of town for having a mind of his own) had in store.

 

But I was merely making a point about the nature of mandates. Although I will point out, Nuke, that Republicans turned on Bush with regard to SS reform, too. They were afraid of the AARP at the ballot box.

[Balta1701]

That's right, of course, but losing by three million votes and then boasting that with a mild shift in Ohio you'd have been President really annoys me, and that, specifically, was what I was commenting on. I do agree with yours too, though.

So...in other words, you'd be in favor of abolishing the Electoral college too.

 

i think my main problem is that democrats will set up a system in their area and when it doesn't work they want to blame Republicans (aka, butterfly ballots in 2000).

How many Democrats actually blamed "Republicans" for the butterfly ballot mess? The commissioner who designed the ballot was a Democrat, the people who didn't pay attention weren't being fooled by some Republican scheme. I can understand blaming Republicans for the riots that shut down the recounts, or for the 5-4 Republican/Democrat Supreme Court decision, but the butterfly ballot? I can't place blame for that on anyone other than the person who designed the ballot and the people who didn't bother to pay attention to it.

[NorthSideSox72]

i think my main problem is that democrats will set up a system in their area and when it doesn't work they want to blame Republicans (aka, butterfly ballots in 2000).

Kind of like the GOP blaming the "MSM" when their numbers go down.

[kapkomet]

Kind of like the GOP blaming the "MSM" when their numbers go down.

You're kidding, right? There's been study after study done on that, and there is a correlation.

[NorthSideSox72]

You're kidding, right? There's been study after study done on that, and there is a correlation.

Show me. Seriously. I want to see any scientific study that shows any demonstrable, consistent leaning of the major networks to one side or the other. Because I haven't seen it. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist of course - which is why I really would like to see it - but for now, I just don't believe it.

 

The MSM (in this case I mean the major networks, major papers) is possibly not right at dead center. But I'd say they are pretty darn close, in the net, with their news stories and story selection. And I am not talking about opinion columnists here, I mean the reported NEWS. I just don't see a material bias there.

[mr_genius]

Kind of like the GOP blaming the "MSM" when their numbers go down.

 

 

Well, I think the main stream media can definately sway public opinion with biased journalism and programming. But I think you're rignt... most people know that , for example, the New York Times isn't a straight forward news source (kinda like FOX news isn't).

 

The GOP's current low numbers are all their own fault. Bush has been fairly incompetent in many areas. The Iraq war was a horrible idea from the start as were some of his financial deciscions concerning the deficit.

[Cknolls]

Don't hate him cause he's beautiful!

 

 

oui. oui.

[Balta1701]

For anyone actually interested in this subject, the debate (including Kennedy) is continuing @ Salon.com.