Dems repeat their mistakes

[yesthattom]

“We’ve waited four years for this victory. We can wait one more night.” said John Edwards.

Bullshit. Bullshit bullshit. BULLSHIT.

While Dems “wait”, the Republicans “work”. Start building the frame NOW that we’ve won. It’s a PR war. The right meme is “We’ve won, don’t let the Republicans steal it!” Start the lawsuits! Start the questions! Lay the groundwork!

Don’t just give up, you fuckers!

Comments

Overreacting?

[dballing.livejournal.com]

Start the lawsuits -- on what grounds?

Seriously, Tom, this type of overreaction is what turns a LOT of undecideds against the Democratic party.

Right now the only state that is "in play" is Ohio, and there really doesn't seem to be any significant evidence of "GOP Badness" going on there, least not that I can find mentioned anywhere.

It really comes down to seeing what happens with the provisional ballots, and if you think the local Democratic overseers aren't going to be present to see what happens there, you're crazy.

Relax. Inhale, hold for four, exhale. Threatening to "send in the lawyers" isn't going to solve anything, except to further divide a country which is clearly divided right down the middle.

Re: Overreacting?

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

I disagree. What loses undecideds is that they don't want to vote for a party that doesn't fight for themselves. "If they don't push for themself, why would they push for me?"

You aren't hearing about the "GOP Badness"? Let's examine why. You aren't hearing about it from the GOP for obvious reasons. The press only reports what they hear from other sources because they don't do investigative journalism any more. And the Dems are listening to people like you that say they shouldn't talk trash. So OF COURSE you aren't hearing anything.

If you remember, this is how the Dems lost Florida in 2000, and a year later it was an accepted fact that Gore should have won but the Dems didn't fight for it.

Re: Overreacting?

[dballing.livejournal.com]

Tom, no offense, but since you're a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat and I'm a centrist who sits in the middle, can we for a moment pretend that I might have a better feel for the pulse of the centrist undecided voter? :-)

I can't speak for "all of us", only myself, but I've seen nothing to indicate that I'm not indicative of the center.

The only thing that's "in play" are the provisional ballots, and rather than sic a team of lawyers on the State of Ohio, maybe -- just maybe -- it's better to let them reach their own conclusions first. Then, if you still disagree with their conclusions, THEN you may decide to say something.

If the Dems send in the Lawyer Wolves, and Ohio (ignoring them) comes to a Blue victory, the GOP will then have plenty of cause to say "Oh, the Dems came in and stole the election, those bastards!" and send in a plethora of lawyers to fight the Dem lawyers, etc., etc.

You have to give "the system" a chance to work before you try to fight it. Doing anything less just causes the middle-ground to see your side as the bad guys.

Now, you can believe whatever you want, but again I point out that I don't think you're necessarily in the best position to know what goes through the mind of the undecided voter. :)

Re: Overreacting?

[awfief.livejournal.com]

Someone in a friend's journal said it best -- "Kerry can't run his own campaign. What makes us think he can run a country?"

He shouldn't be quiet. Yes, Bush is being totally arrogant and trying to make Kerry concede. When a bully does that to you, as a peaceful person, you should indeed walk away and not start a fight.

However, what most of America wants, needs, is a fight. You want to see your candidate defend himself, otherwise, you think he's wishy-washy.

Bush isn't trying to give "the system" a chance to work before he claims victory. Kerry should claim victory as well. If he's wrong, he's wrong. There are worse things than being wrong -- Bush has been wrong over and over and yet Americans still vote for him, KNOWING he was wrong and KNOWING he didn't admit mistakes.

Unfortunately, Americans want petulance. We want mudslinging. Democracy is, unfortunately, at work. Democracy favors the majority -- not the [over]educated, alternative lifestyle, racially diverse MINORITIES.

Wouldn't it be nice if churches actually taught compassion for their fellow countrymen? Some do, and I've been to them. Still others do but people don't listen. We need to talk to our friends and family and neighbors, and get involved in our communities.

Re: Overreacting?

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

You're telling me that when faced with "sitting around trusting a Republican secretary of state to count" vs. "closely monitoring them and making sure they do things right" the former is the best route?

Read http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200411/green and then tell me if you still think so.

Re: Overreacting?

[docstrange.livejournal.com]

While I agree there needs to be close monitoring, there is no indication that there won't be close monitoring. The SoS himself isn't going to count. The very same people that count the main votes will -- a bipartisan group of elections officials checking each others' numbers, almost certainly with Democrat and GOP representative attorneys allowed to monitor.

Do the Dems have to counter the spin? Yes. Immediately. But starting the offensive such that it disrupts the normal process or gives the appearance of disrupting the process robs us of one thing that we should have even if we don't like who winds up winning: The ability to believe that, as far as it counts, the electoral process in the U.S. works.

Re: Overreacting?

[jcspd.livejournal.com]

"one thing that we should have even if we don't like who winds up winning: The ability to believe that, as far as it counts, the electoral process in the U.S. works."

Why, precisely, should we have that "belief" (as you put it), when it does not work "as far as it counts?"

I find that statement intensely creepy, especially as I'm now re-reading "The Trial."

Re: Overreacting?

[docstrange.livejournal.com]

Why, precisely, should we have that "belief" (as you put it), when it does not work "as far as it counts?"

You misconstrue me and leave out the key phrase, "such that it disrupts the process." I'll restate. We deserve as a democratic republic to be able to have solid evidence that the process has accurately counted votes at least such that the margin of error does not affect the outcome. We should see the process improve in accuracy and elimination of corruption with each election. But when we interrupt the normal, documented process before it completes, we create the very uncertainty that we wish to avoid. Thus, I think (moot now) we should wait for the eleven days for the process in OH to complete before disrupting matters with lawsuits. If the process completes and the margin of error and doubt remains significant, then, as in 2000, we will see that belief rightly shaken, and cast into doubt.

Unless you are asserting that the process did not work this time around, which is a fact with which I don't agree: There are now officially 150,000 provisional ballots in OH. In 2000, 90% of them were valid (but few were really challenged). We could spend the time to count them all. But even if ALL the valid ones are ALL for Kerry (which they won't be, though 90% or more may be for him), he still comes up short several thousand votes. I don't like the outcome, but I am not liking it because of what it indicates about the rest of the electorate; not because of a technical process failure.

Re: Overreacting?

[jcspd.livejournal.com]

I agree with you. While I'm not "undecided" in the sense that I would ever vote republican, I'm certainly "undecided" in terms of "should I vote democratic" or "should I vote someone else because there isn't enough substantial difference." Here, I voted for Kerry because, quite frankly, Bush is fucking terrifying. Last time, I voted for Nader (but, to be honest, if I lived in a swing state I would have voted for Gore). However, before this election, I almost became so jaded that I was toying with the idea of not voting at all. Comments like, "we can wait one more night," are exactly what I find particularly disgusting. I can only get excited about someone who fight to win, not make concessions or be polite or kiss ass to win.

Re: Overreacting?

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

Read http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200411/green and then tell me if you still think so.

[lothie.livejournal.com]

Tom, if Kerry's conceded, do the provisional ballots still get counted? Or is it over? Do you know?

[docstrange.livejournal.com]

(Kerry just said in his speech: 1) there are not enough provisional ballots to change the outcome in OH, and 2) the provisional ballots will be counted.)

They would be counted if just one OH race is within 130,000 votes, because the other races in OH are on them, too. So, in the end, we will have an official tally.

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

I don't know.