Democrats & Liberals Archives

As Big as 1994

There seems to be universal agreement among the pundits that the Democratic victory in 2006 is not as impressive as the Republican midterm victory in 1994. This analysis is based on the numbers of seats gained from the elections. What really matters, though, is how many seats each party now holds.

When a bill comes up for a vote, you count the votes you have now. How many you had in the previous Congress is irrelevant. Looked at properly, the numbers show that the 2006 elections were actually quite similar to the 1994 elections.

When the 104th Congress convened in 1995, the Republicans controlled 230 seats in the House and 52 seats in the Senate. When the new Congress convenes, the Democrats will control at least 232 Seats in the House. (There are several Republican-held districts where the votes are still being counted.) The Senate is admittedly tighter, with the Democrats holding onto a bare one-seat majority. The way the Senate works, however, anything under 60 is a wash. House majorities, on the other hand, can actually get things done.

Seen in this light, the most striking thing about the Democratic plans for the new Congress is how modest the are. They have chosen to start with a small core set of issues that should provoke only minimal opposition. Do the Republicans want to go to the mat to block a minimum wage increase? Not if they are smart. Do they want to keep opposing embyronic stem cell research? Ask Jim Talent and Michael Steele how that worked out for them. Likewise for negotiating drug prices for Medicare. If the Republicans want to defend a handout for big pharma, let them go ahead. They’ll keep getting the money, but they’ll keep losing the votes.

Pelosi has gotten a lot of flak over supporting Murtha, but in a few weeks that will be ancient history. By building up a track record of accomplishment, she can prove her worth.

Once these small issues are out of the way, there are bigger ones approaching on the horizon. In Iraq, the onus is still on Bush and the Baker Commision to come up with the plan. It is up to the Democrats to use the power of the purse to coax them along. (Bush can talk about his war powers all he wants, but the Constitution doesn’t let him raid the Treasury without congressional approval.) The prospect of comprehensive immigration reform has promise and peril for both parties. Bush clearly wants an amnes-, er, path to citizenship to be part of his legacy. Representatives from both parties will face a tough choice about whether to go along.

Posted by Woody Mena at November 19, 2006 12:27 PM
Comments
Comment #195705

Woody

This election is as big as 2002.

Posted by: Jack at November 19, 2006 3:18 PM
Comment #195713

In terms of the final count, yes.

And that was a fairly momentous two years that followed.

Posted by: Woody Mena at November 19, 2006 4:39 PM
Comment #195723

I wonder how many seats the Democrats might have won were it not for all the re-disticting done by the Republicans to strengthen their hold on Congress.

Posted by: Tim in NY at November 19, 2006 6:01 PM
Comment #195725

Tim

The Dems won something like 53% of the total vote. They got about what you would expect with that kind of number.

BTW - there were times in the 1980s when the Republicans polled more than 50% and still did not win the House.

The redistricting protected incumbents of both parties and was designed to ensure that minorities got elected. The Republicans managed to protect their guys in Texas. The Dems did the same in California and NY.

Posted by: Jack at November 19, 2006 6:22 PM
Comment #195732

Jack
In CA there was more going on than gerrymandering. Pombo,for example, lost in a heavily Rep district.In other places,Chafee for example,lost even though exit polls showed most voters had a good opinion of him. Voters were useing their heads. If your looking for reasons for the Rep loses look no farthur than your failed leadership. I hope ours does better and I hope yours does also.

Posted by: BillS at November 19, 2006 7:14 PM
Comment #195754

Woody, good article, and I agree. Btw, who is to tell us how big a win we really might have had? There is still plenty going on with people looking at problems that cropped up during the election.

BillS, what you said!

Posted by: Adrienne at November 19, 2006 8:58 PM
Comment #195755

BillS

Yes. Republicans lost the election. Dems won 53% of the vote. Not exactly the landslide and certainly not the tidal wave of 1994.

I guess I feel that Dems have about as much a mandate from the people as Republicans did in 2004. That is the nature of our democracy. There are no permanent victories or defeats.

It is healthy to have an occassional setback. I am glad that Republicans are a little more reasonalble than Dems. The races in Virginia and Montana were so close that Dems certainly would have cried foul and demanded recounts. Our guys did the right thing.

Posted by: Jack at November 19, 2006 9:00 PM
Comment #195766

Jack:

This election wasn’t a mandate, much less a sea change on the good ship USA. The GOP, thank god, is much more reasonable, well-tempered and polite than the Dems. Pelosi is a San Francisco, gay-loving lunatic, and Joe Lieberman really mirrors the true heart of the Democratic Party. How can the Dems say that this is a turn to the Left when so many Blue Dog Dems were elected? The Dems didn’t win this election the Repubs lost it. When the American people see the radical policies of the Dems in living color, up close and personal, there will be a wholesale return to the GOP, and with a great sense of relief. Besides, these setbacks are character builders, and a little bloody nose will set the GOP back on the track to true conservative principles, true free market values. Liberals had nothing to do with this last election, the entire electorate spoke from the true center, and once they see how radical and distanced the Dems are from the middle where all true Americans reside, they will get what’s coming to them. Oh sure, there were a few bad apples on Capitol Hill this past election, but everyone knows that when push comes to shove, the Dems are much more corrupt, all things being equal. When the American people find out how really weak the Dems are on defense, and how they mock America’s real war on the terrorist Islamofacist menace, the voters will return to the GOP in droves.

Did I miss anything, Jack? If not, you’ll have to excuse me— I’ve been tapped by the Left (a great honor really) to plan this year’s War On X-mas. I don’t want to tip my hand before Thanksgiving… but let me assure everyone that the carol Little Drummer Boy is in serious trouble. I’ve been pondering replacing it on all musak everywhere with Frank Zappa’s Call Any Vegetable.

Posted by: Tim Crow at November 19, 2006 9:32 PM
Comment #195777
Yes. Republicans lost the election. Dems won 53% of the vote. Not exactly the landslide and certainly not the tidal wave of 1994.

Jack,

According to Wikipedia it was 54%. And they are still counting the votes.

Did you know what the percent of the vote the Republicans got in 1994? Are you willing to bet it was much more than 54%?

Tim Crow,

Yep, America hates those crazy liberal Democrats. Just keep telling yourself that. Well promise to be humane when we arrest you for putting up a Christmas tree.

Posted by: Woody Mena at November 19, 2006 10:15 PM
Comment #195778

Woody,

I think you misunderstood Tim Crow’s satirical comments.

Posted by: KansasDem at November 19, 2006 10:20 PM
Comment #195779

Actually, you could argue that the Senate results really were a landslide. Consider the fact that only 33 seats were actually voted on this cycle. The Democrats won 24 of them, or 73%.

Posted by: Woody Mena at November 19, 2006 10:26 PM
Comment #195785

Woody,

I’m a true blue Democrat. I’m liberal as can be on social issues. I believe the USA is turning it’s “collective” back on it’s most vulnerable citizens.

But, we lacked a great deal of the impact of 1994!

By 1994 we’d been spoon fed the BS of Reagan’s “trickle down economy” for 14 years. We’d already experienced a multitude of lies from the “Right Wing” that truly began to shift the “tax-load” to the middle class.

This was exemplified by George H. W.’s lie: “No new taxes”! That lie and and a total lack of charisma (repeat after me……Dan Quayle). Look, insanity runs in the family! GHW selected Dan Quayle as being “one heart beat away from”, holy shit! Jeb ‘08 my ass! The whole f**king family’s nuttier than a fruit cake.

All of that aside the American people want instant results! They want the war in Iraq to be over yesterday and they want great results. Peace in the middle east would be good. Increases in all of our credit limits would be fantastic.

I’ve been having trouble paying for an “aid” to come in and help me with personal stuff so I think the Democrats should fix my budget.

Woody, you’re an intelligent person. Our win in the House and Senate is great but people want immediate results. It won’t happen!

I hope I’m wrong, but I think we’ll keep heading down the road to Dominionist Theocracy.

Posted by: KansasDem at November 19, 2006 11:08 PM
Comment #195792

KansasDem,

I don’t think people expect much from the Democrats in Congress. You can read that in a positive or negative way.

Posted by: Woody Mena at November 19, 2006 11:38 PM
Comment #195803

“I don’t think people expect much from the Democrats in Congress.”

Woody,

I’m pretty realistic inspite of stressing an extreme view at times. The fact is that we just fought for and won a position that’s equivalent to being neck deep in a cesspool and when January comes around the “coffee-break’s” over so we have to take a nose dive into the largest national debt ever and the nastiest war since Nam.

We not only have a tough row to hoe, we have no hoe! The next couple of years is going to be all uphill. If we fail the nation will move further towards a dominionist theocracy.

Posted by: KansasDem at November 20, 2006 12:41 AM
Comment #195804

Woody,

Interesting article. In terms of seats controlled, you are pretty much correct. However, this is not the total story. Prior to ‘94, the Republicans were a far smalller minority than were the Dems in ‘06. Further, this election was only around average in terms of both House and Senate pick-ups for a mid-term. The ‘94 election was far larger in the scope of incumbents defeated. Were it not for Iraq, it is highly unlikely that voter discontent would’ve given the Dems such a victory. They might have chipped away at the Republican majority, but it is doubtful they would’ve taken both Houses. Also, bear in mind that the ‘94 election, while a mid-term, was in Clinton’s first term, this was halfway through Bush’s second. History says that Bush was destined to lose seats this time around, the fact that the loss was only about average for a second term midterm election, even with the massive voter discontent, probably does not bode well for Democrats unless they can accomplish some real change in the next two years.

Posted by: 1LT B at November 20, 2006 12:44 AM
Comment #195811

1LT B,

The nation was unified for a short time after 9-11. No one was looking at individual ethics in 2002. We all believed that Bush and the Republicans were going to save us from the boogey man.

Well, the boogey man’s still on the loose and people are not as enchanted with the Neo-Con rhetoric. We want results NOW.

So you’re right when you say, “probably does not bode well for Democrats unless they can accomplish some real change in the next two years.”

Only time will tell.

Posted by: KansasDem at November 20, 2006 1:07 AM
Comment #195819

Jack

If the losing candidates in Montana,Idaho or any place else have good reason to think that the votes were not counted properly they have a moral obligation to ask for a recount. Peoples votes should count and it is hardly dis-honorable to insist on that. If GWB had stood shoulder to shoulder with Al Gore in Florida and demanded a recount of the whole state he would have had the respect of this American at least. As it was the tone was set for many years of mis-trust and division.The country is weaker for it.

Posted by: BillS at November 20, 2006 2:05 AM
Comment #195821

Landslide ,mandate whatever. A victory is a victory. If the Dems do nothing else but stop any more bonehead,dangerious, moves by Bushco,like invading Iran or NK,it is a wonderful thing.Lame duck,now there is a phrase I am beginning to like.

Posted by: BillS at November 20, 2006 2:11 AM
Comment #195831

“Seen in this light, the most striking thing about the Democratic plans for the new Congress is how modest the are. They have chosen to start with a small core set of issues that should provoke only minimal opposition.”
————————————————————————-

In my opinion that is just the smart thing to do, starting off with a modest agenda.

The key in politics is rallying your well-diversified base. The Republicans have had big problems representing both social/religous conservatives and libertarian conservatives, while trying to woo minority groops and moderates.

The obvious result, as the last years of the GOP holding both chambers and the presidency clearly proves, is utter chaos:

- The “small government party” has grown government spending to an astronomical degree, surpassing the Clinton administration by a wide margin. Pork-barrel spending went through the roof. Libertarian conservatives.

- Values and ethics are hard to find in a party that was more dominated by K-Street and big business than its electorate. Social conservatives.

Etc.

The GOP is NOT A PARTY but A COALITION of extremely diverse subpopulations. Now that this coalition shows signs of falling apart, one thing the Dems shouldn’t do is start acting like a common enemy to all of them one a large number of issues, driving them to rally behind the Republican cause and closing the ranks.

That’s why I would personally like the Dems to take it slow and don’t offer any easy presents. Press your agenda but do not overreach at this point in time. Divide and conquer wins the political game, while going full steam ahead without making compromises makes you a loser. Just ask the GOP.

Semper divide et impera!

Posted by: Josh at November 20, 2006 5:30 AM
Comment #195840
History says that Bush was destined to lose seats this time around, the fact that the loss was only about average for a second term midterm election, even with the massive voter discontent, probably does not bode well for Democrats…

So according to you, there is massive discontent with the GOP. And this doesn’t bode well for… the Democrats? Sounds like wishful thinking to me.

It would be one thing if the main source of discontent, Iraq, actually improved. I’m not seeing it though. In fact, I think the climate may actually be WORSE for Republicans in 2008, because the true believers are going to realize that the Iraq War was a mistake (or even worse, think it wasn’t a mistake and be mad at the GOP for cutting-and-running.)

Posted by: Woody Mena at November 20, 2006 9:17 AM
Comment #195843

Jack:

Republicans? Reasonable? Thats what you like about them? Uh Huh!

Posted by: tex at November 20, 2006 9:28 AM
Comment #195849

Woody Mena,

Even with this massive discontent with the Republicans, the Democrats’ margins of victory was generally very small. Without the Iraq war, it is very possible that the Republicans would’ve maintained their majority. The Iraq war will be settled eventually, when it is, the Democrats will be forced to actually stand on their policies and especially their social views, which are increasingly out of touch with the will of the American people. The Democrats did not win as much as the Republicans lost and the reason for this was that they did not live up to the conservative values they claimed to espouse. The Iraq War was and will continue to be a millstone about the neck of the Republicans, but this will be resolved, one way or the other, and probably soon. Once this happens, the Dems will be without the club they have used on the Republicans. As America continues to trend more and more conservative, the Dems will either need to drop or moderate a lot of their social agenda or lose their majority.

Posted by: 1LT B at November 20, 2006 10:54 AM
Comment #195852

BillS

They recounted Florida - the whole state. The recount was completed on November 10 and Bush still won. On November 18, after all the absentee ballots were counting, Bush won again. It did not end there, however. After that we had the hanging chads and all the rest. The Gore folks wanted to recount until Gore won and then they would call it fair.

In a close race, you might want to recount the votes. But if the same guy wins a second time and even a third time, that should be the end of it. Every time you count, you will come up with a slightly different number. It is a statistical process.

The Flordia vote was just too close to make everybody happy. I understand the Dem frustration. The vote really could have gone either way. But Bush won the original count and he won the required recount. In other words, he won the election based on the rules in place before the vote. That is all we can ask of a fair election. We cannot think of other things after that may cause our guy to win.

This is the Timeline to help us all recall the details.

What probably should have happened is that Florida reported NO results. In that case, the vote would have gone to Congress where each state would have one vote. Bush would have won that one too, BTW, since at that time Republicans outnumbered Dems.


Posted by: Jack at November 20, 2006 11:21 AM
Comment #195857

1LT B:
“The Iraq war will be settled eventually, when it is, the Democrats will be forced to actually stand on their policies and especially their social views, which are increasingly out of touch with the will of the American people.”

I think you’re completely wrong about this. Terri Schiavo. Foley and the Republicans who protected him. Haggard’s fall from grace. Kuo’s book on the lip-service only views of the leaders of the GOP. The hypocrisy of your party surrounding social issues has been fully exposed. There is even hypocrisy surrounding the issue of abortion within the Republican party. Indeed, hypocrisy even within the Bush family, because Laura and Barbara Bush both happen to support a womans right to have an abortion.
It is your party who is actually out of touch, no matter how much you deny it.

Democrats have absolutely nothing to be ashamed of when it comes to our social views, because our party has always dealt with the realities of life head-on, rather than running, denying or trying to bury the truth. We also stand for individual freedoms, and for civil rights for all Americans — things we should all feel very proud of.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 20, 2006 11:44 AM
Comment #195859
Even with this massive discontent with the Republicans, the Democrats’ margins of victory was generally very small.

Not it wasn’t. Very small is someone becoming president by 537 votes. You would have had to shift a lot more votes than that for GOP to keep this House this time.


Jack,

The problem with Florida was that the fix was already in. The fact that is was close is really beside the point. The Democrats got mugged.

If Bush was an honorable man, he wouldn’t have wanted to become president on the basis of a racist voter purge.

Posted by: Woody Mena at November 20, 2006 11:52 AM
Comment #195871

Woody

That is exactly the problem. You make a statement that can never be reasonably proven or disproven. It is unscientific.

There is no margin that would satisfy such a statment. In Ohio, where Bush won by a large margin, we heard the same things.

You have to go into the election with certain rules. Then you decide the election based on those rules. You do not go back later on and try to pick the facts to fit the conclusion you want.

This is a fundamental reasoning problem. A simple statistical problem. The chances are 100% that someone will win the lottery. But how mysterious we can make it sound about the person who really did. He chose his winning numbers based on some special formula etc. The same is true of an election. If we look at it carefully, we can find strange little things. They sound a lot more ominous than they are.

When all the smoke had cleared in Flordia, you could not no evidence of systematic fraud or disenfrancisement. You have the usual ghost stories. To the credit of Republicans in Virginia and Montana, they did not do that. I am proud of them. Dems can learn from that, but probably will not.

Posted by: Jack at November 20, 2006 12:54 PM
Comment #195876

Jack,

It is a matter of historical record that thousands of people were disenfranchised in Florida. I’m not talking about vague complaints of intidimation or harassment, but people being legally prevented from voting. There are records. It is no more of a “ghost story” than Watergate.

You can ignore these facts, but that doesn’t make them go away.

If thousands of likely Republican voters were legally prevented from voting in Virginia and Montana, I would leave to hear about it.

Posted by: Woody Mena at November 20, 2006 1:37 PM
Comment #195879

Historical record? How many people have been charged with disenfrancising these guys? It is easy to claim. I know a guy who…

Some people go to the wrong polls, do not understand instructions etc. Many Dems were distracted by shiny objects. It does not mean they are disenfrancised, just dumb.

Posted by: Jack at November 20, 2006 1:43 PM
Comment #195884

Historical records as in newspaper articles, books, reports. Believe it or not, bad things do happen without someone getting indicted.

I won’t even dignify the “dumb” comment with a response. If someone is listed as ineligible to vote, and they actually are eligible, they have been disenfranchised by definition.


Posted by: Woody Mena at November 20, 2006 2:01 PM
Comment #195885

Jack: The point I wanted to make was that there is nothing wrong with recounts in very close or suspect races to be sure that the will of the voters is honored.There is a price to pay in trust if they are not done. As furthur evidence of this I need only point to the several post here still arguing about Florida.What I said was that if Bush had stood with Gore to insist that a recount take place the country would be less divided. I believe that to be self evident.

Posted by: BillS at November 20, 2006 2:04 PM
Comment #195886

Adrienne,

I’ll give no argument about the Terri Schiavo debacle, that was total bullshit, but you’re using individual examples. I’m talking about general worldview on social issues. Most of the country does not approve of gay rights, something the Democratic party supports as part of its plank. Whatever your personal feelings on the matter, Dems can’t win on this issue, at least not fight now. Most people do not believe that parents don’t need to know if their minor daughter wants to get an abortion, again something the Democrats have supported. Most Americans don’t like the idea of gun control, something the Democratic party plank calls for. Why do you think Pelosi wasn’t out on the campaign trail? The San Francisco values of the radical left are increasingly out of step with the rest of America whether you care to admit it or not.

Woody,

By close, I meant within a few percentage points. And for Christ’s sake, can we drop the 2000 crap? Your guy lost, get the fuck over it! While you bitch and moan about Florida that if Gore had won his own state that Florida wouldn’t matter? How about Clinton’s home state, he lost there too. Gore is a miserable loser, get over it.

Jack,

Thanks for calling a spade a spade, you rule!

Posted by: 1LT B at November 20, 2006 2:08 PM
Comment #195888

Adrienne,

I’ll give no argument about the Terri Schiavo debacle, that was total bullshit, but you’re using individual examples. I’m talking about general worldview on social issues. Most of the country does not approve of gay rights, something the Democratic party supports as part of its plank. Whatever your personal feelings on the matter, Dems can’t win on this issue, at least not fight now. Most people do not believe that parents don’t need to know if their minor daughter wants to get an abortion, again something the Democrats have supported. Most Americans don’t like the idea of gun control, something the Democratic party plank calls for. Why do you think Pelosi wasn’t out on the campaign trail? The San Francisco values of the radical left are increasingly out of step with the rest of America whether you care to admit it or not.

Woody,

By close, I meant within a few percentage points. And for Christ’s sake, can we drop the 2000 crap? Your guy lost, get the fuck over it! While you bitch and moan about Florida what about the fact that if Gore had won his own state Florida wouldn’t have mattered? How about Clinton’s home state, he lost there too? Gore is a miserable loser, get over it.

Jack,

Thanks for calling a spade a spade, you rule!

Posted by: 1LT B at November 20, 2006 2:09 PM
Comment #195898

Sorry about the double post, I was trying to edit and hit the wrong button.

Posted by: 1LT B at November 20, 2006 3:15 PM
Comment #195904

Woody

We can expect reasonable behavior and cooperation from voters. If they show up at the wrong place or the wrong day or do not feel that they were properly directed I am not sure we lost much by their absence.

You can write a book, newspaper article or report about anything. Look at Amazon for books about Alien abductions, Bigfoot and the Bermuda Triangle. The things people are talking about are crimes. You would think that among all these hundreds or thousands of incidents, a significant number of leads investigated would lead to some real proof.

BillS

They recounted. Bush won three times. Would the forth or fifth recount been any more accurate? Each time the recounts took place, some hanging chads became votes and there was more possibilities opened for fraud. By the third count, Gore was out. He should have done the right thing and let the country recover.

This election was too close to call. If the forth or fifth count had gone against Gore, Dems would still think it was unfair and we would have been divided. If the fifth or sixth count had gone against Bush, Republicans would have been convinced Dems stuffed the ballot. Complaints beyond the third count caused the division. Npthing but declaring Gore the victor could have satisfied the Dem activists.

Posted by: Jack at November 20, 2006 3:48 PM
Comment #195908
Pelosi has gotten a lot of flak over supporting Murtha, but in a few weeks that will be ancient history. By building up a track record of accomplishment, she can prove her worth.

Thinks so?
We will see.
Looks like a shaky start already.
And why shouldn’t it be?
90% of irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for, look-the-other-way incumbent politicians still got re-elected.
So, let’s see how much (if anything) this so-called Congress gets accomplished between now and 2008?

Especially when 2007 is shaping up to look like a recession.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 20, 2006 4:05 PM
Comment #195911

Jack,

I give up. Whatever I write you either bring up something irrelevant or reflexively say there’s no proof. Whatever.

Posted by: Woody Mena at November 20, 2006 4:13 PM
Comment #195916

Woody

Because there isn’t. Ghost stories.

In the last election several Dems were actually arrested for things like slashing tires & bribing street people with booze and cigaretts. This stuff goes on in every election. It is a crime when it does. But you cannot just say that Republicans do it therefore they should concede elections.

We never evidently will agree on this. I suppose you figure that the 2006 election was fair.

Posted by: Jack at November 20, 2006 4:37 PM
Comment #195919

I never said Bush should have conceded. He could have called for a revote in Florida, with eligible voters actually allowed to vote. There is actually precident in Florida for this. It happened in a mayoral race in Miami.

Posted by: Woody Mena at November 20, 2006 4:49 PM
Comment #195929

Woody

There was not enough evidence of a problem to call for a revote. You may have had a revote in Miami, but I do not believe there has ever in American history been a revote in a presidential election.

If you revote Florida, why not all those other states? In my native state of Wisconsin, for example, Dems slashed the tires of Republican get out the vote vans and bribed street people with cigaretts and booze to vote.

You also know Bush probably would have won the revote. After all Republicans have a better get out the vote and Bush did win handily in 2004 (52% to 47% or about than 400,000 votes). Given Florida’s usual voting patterns, it would seem more likely that DEMS cheated in 2000 to almost win.

Posted by: Jack at November 20, 2006 5:38 PM
Comment #195933

Really Jack and others. I wish I had not brought up Florida at all. I was just trying to point out that there is nothing categorically wrong with a recount if there is a possible election dispute.Voters need to know their vote counted,otherwise why vote. Many do not,largely because that is what they believe already.
Believe me I can rant and cast accusations with the best of them but what is the point. I’ll say again,the country faces serious problems. It is time for serious debate by serious people. I was impressed by your piece on the redside calling for oil independace. At the same time there was one on the blueside. Yours calls for a radical shift in the direction of your party. Ours not so much but this clearly shows we can work together on a major problem faceing OUR country instead of this tit for tat disrespect we show to each other. I know I am trying and like everything else it takes practice. Seems to me this last election was not just about Iraq or corruption etc. It showed a fundemental and fervant hope by the American people to change the tone and address real problems.

Posted by: BillS at November 20, 2006 6:49 PM
Comment #195976

Would the loosers like some cheese with their whine?

Posted by: tex at November 21, 2006 12:32 AM
Comment #195987

BillS,

There is nothing wrong with having a recount when the votes are very close, such as in Florida in 2000. What gets me is that Bush won the initial count, then won the recount. Rather than just gracefully accepting the loss, many Dems accused, and continue to accuse the Republicans of corruption and cheating. I get sick to death of this, especially the hypocrisy of the Gore camp railing against supposed disenfranchisement when he sued to block military overseas ballots because of post mark errors when there was no doubt that the majority of these votes were for Bush.

tex,

Good post.

Posted by: 1LT B at November 21, 2006 6:30 AM
Comment #195988
Really Jack and others. I wish I had not brought up Florida at all.

Believe me, I get tired of arguing these points, too. But whenever Republicans talk about Democrats whining just because the election was close, I feel morally obligated to point out that there was more going on than the election being close. (Suppose you were mugged one day, and all anyone ever talked about is how you were three cents short on your bus fare to get home…) I consider it is a way of fighting historical revisionism.

Posted by: Woody Mena at November 21, 2006 7:21 AM
Comment #196122

Election 2000 in the state of Florida WAS RIGGED, AND IT WAS STOLEN. So was Ohio in 2004. Plenty of shady, and problematic, and chaotic, and totally unanswerable things going on in many other states as well. Starting from 2000 on up to today it’s fair to say that our elections cannot be trusted.
If people took the time to read about all of the illegal actions that have occurred — all benefitting the GOP to an overwhelmingly large and amazingly unusual degree — and were honest enough to admit the facts and truth of the matter to themselves and to others, and began adding up all the many chunks and bits and pieces of information together in their heads, they’d know this with CERTAINTY.
Jack has never wanted to read about all the problems that have occured in our elections (including the one we just had — see link in my first post above), and has steadfastly refused to admit that anything seriously wrong could have happened at all in any of the elections. In spite of his ignorance on this subject, and just because he finds it a lot of fun to try to annoy liberals, he chooses to use words like “occult” and “ghosts” each and everytime the issue is raised. Because you see, he doesn’t care the least little bit how much time someone has taken to read and study the issues surrounding our elections. He will mock and insult you, and he will just keep on denying everything. Why waste your time?
I’ve completely given up on arguing with Jack on this topic for all of the above reasons. He doesn’t counter any facts or links you might give. He will only refute everything. And all the while, he is doing everything he can to try to frustrate and anger you.
Who needs it? Certainly not me.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 21, 2006 10:42 PM
Comment #196130

Adrienne & Woody

I read those things you guys put up. Even the mainstream Dems do not believe them.

I am one of the only people who recognizes that elections are never perfect counts. In the other post, we have a credible story about problems in Penn. This is a state where the Dems won the big elections. It is run mostly by Dems on the state and local level. Yes, you guys should fix the problem, but I do not accuse you of stealing the elections because of it.

In the Florida case, the counties such as Broward and Dade were also controlled by Dems. The butterfly ballot was designed by a Dem. Yes, you guys should have done a better job, but again, I do not say you tried to steal the election.

I do not find credible evidence that cheating and fraud swayed recent elections. Whenever we come up with real examples (slashing tires, fraudulent registration, bribing street people) they are mostly Dems.

Yes, I wish Dems would be a little more careful, but I do not think they have managed to steal any elections, at least not recently.

Posted by: Jack at November 21, 2006 11:27 PM
Comment #196167

Jack,

Your double-standard is blatantly obvious here. Why is the Penn story credible to you? Because it’s about Democrats. The Florida voter purge has a lot more documentation than that blog post. But you don’t believe it because it was the GOP.

Posted by: Woody Mena at November 22, 2006 8:48 AM
Comment #196199

WOody

The Penn story is exactly the type of thing I always say. Elections are a statistical process subject to error. We should work to make them as good as possible, but we will never make them perfect. This is the truth, not just A truth.

So we have some noise in the system. There is no indication that it has swung any national election.

More of the recent noise has been created in Dem controlled areas. I am willing to give Dems the benefit of the doubt that this is not some plot. But I certainly will not accept that the Dem noise is a Republican plot.

Bush won in Florida by all the measures and all the mechanism in place before the election. In order for Gore to have won, we would have to have changed the rule after the decision was made. Republicans had the moral and legal high ground and still hold it. Dems have the ability to raise doubts that they cannot sustain.

In Ohio the result was even more decisive. Again, Republicans hold the moral and legal high ground. Dems can gripe but have after 6 years in Florida and 2 years in Ohio produced nothing more than ghost stories.

I know you guys get really mad about this, but I just do not believe in ghosts. I stipulate that there are bumps in the night that we cannot explain, but I do not jump to the conclusion that what I cannot explain is a ghost and even more precisely a Republican ghost.

Republicans have behaved much more honorably than Dems. In this most recent election, there were several very close races. Two of them determined the balance of the Senate. Republicans did not blame their loss on occult forces. You should learn from this. The Virginia race clearly could have gone either way. Would Dems have let it go?

We may never agree on this. But my side holds all the cards. We have the legal side. We have the evidence. We have American tradition. Dems have inuendo and bumps in the night.

BTW - congratulations on winning the most recent elections. Republicans trust democracy a little more, so I will not try to raise any ghosts.

Posted by: Jack at November 22, 2006 11:52 AM
Comment #196233

Jack,

I can see why you like Bush so much, because you are both found of repeating the same talking points over and over again.

Have it your way. Every data point you don’t like is a “ghost story”. I’ll just remember to translate your comments correctly.

Have a nice T-day.

Posted by: Woody Mena at November 22, 2006 2:46 PM
Comment #196236

Woody

You have to investigate data points not just let people make them up.

Posted by: Jack at November 22, 2006 3:06 PM
Post a comment