A: Well you implied in your post that you thought Edwards won the election and that you hypothesized that Wynn manipulated the results. That indicates that you believe that fraud or some kind of malfeasance occured.
B: I never said you said that Busby's election was stolen. I was referring to the fact that on this and other blogs, the same chorus comes out to scream fraud or "stolen electoins" whenver a favored candidate loses a close race. I wasn't referring specifically to you in that case.
But in general, whenever a Republican wins a close election, there are people who come out to claim that the "election was stolen". It happens in the blogosphere all the time.
C: So how do I know that your version of the facts is correct? You admitted that you were for Edwards. So how do I know that Wynn actually was involved in any tampering? How do I also know that Wynn's allies were the ones who brought in the late precincts? Do you have any corrobortation to that fact?
I will apologize if you think that I smeared you. I apologize for any offense that I might have caused with you. That wasn't my intention. Please accept my apologies.
It is just that I am VERY concerned about how this debate is shaped. For frankly, Matt, it seems like many posts about Diebold often take a conspiratorial tone. People digress into conspiracy theories, implying that every election narrowly won by a Republican or lost non-netroots favored Democrats in contested perimareis is "stolen". This, in turn, makes it harder to proceed reform. For it makes it easier for critics to dismiss any concern as being the rantings of "conspiracy theorists".
I have concerns about the machines. I just hate it when the concern turns into complete conspiracy theories.
I don't think Wynn was one of the Republicans' "most valuable assets" in Congress. Yes his votes on a few issues were out of whack, given how liberal his district is. But he wasn't voting like a conservative Republican either.
This just gets very tiring. The same old voting machine conspiracies just get old and older. It's like clockwork. Whenever a "netroots favored" candidate loses it always has to be the machines that "stole it". This avoids accepting the fact that maybe the "netroots favored" canddiate probably lost.
I'm not saying that malfesance didn't occur. If there were questionable anamolies then there should be investigations. But screaming "stolen election" way before there is any proof weakens whatever claim Edwards may have--at least in the public eye.
Do you have a link to show that your version of events happened? That Wynn and his followeres tampered with the ballots? Your Post article doesn't show it.
Honestly, this gets old. Every election, whenver a favored candidate here loses, the same old people scream "Diebold" and "BBV". And frankly it weakens the cause of election reform. I hate to break it to you, but not every candidate favored here is favored by regular voters. Sometimes, as hard as it is for you to accept, the voters do pick someone else in close elections. I think that you just can't accept the fact that more people voted for Wynn than Edwards.
When Francise Busby lost the same people came out here and other blogs to scream "Diebold" and "BBV". This, in spite of the fact that the 50th district is still very heavily Republican and that Bilbray was probably going to win anyway.
That being said I agree that the conduct of the election should be investigated. If ballots were mishandled those individuals should be disciplined, up to and including termination from their jobs at the board of elections. But screaming "fraud" before you can even prove it weakens your case strongly.
I honestly don't think that what happened in Maryland was some "massive conpsiracy" pushed by Ehrich and the GOP. For frankly, if they did want to rig the elections, why didn't they make it so that William Donald Schaffer would win his primary? Why did they let Peter Franchot win the Controller's primary? Why did they let Doug Gansler win the AG primery? Why was MFume not allowed to win, as pols have shown him behind Steele?
To me it seems like more of a matter of "massive incompetetence" instead of a "massive conspiracy". If there is proof of intentional fraud then Wynn et al should be investigated and suffer whatever legal remedies are available.
But claiming that Edwards was robbed is still very premature at this point. And frankly I think it is more of the fact that you can't accept that she probably, in all honesty, did lose.
And this is from someone who was supportive of her too. I didn't like Wynn's votes on the Bankruptcy Bill. I agree that he needed to be replaced.
I like Edwards and hope that she runs in 2008. Or that maybe she runs for something else in future cycles. For her I think it would be better for her to focus on the future than trying to fight an outcome that she (most likely) isn't going to be able to reverse.
I have one story to share. In 1994 Ellen Sauerbrey (R) lost a very close race for Governor in MD. She lost by 5,000 votes to Parris Glendening (D). For weeks afterward she screamed "fraud". She filed lawsuit after lawsuit, claiming that dead people voted. Long story short she finally relented right before Glendening was to be inaugurated.
However, as a result of that whole post-election challenge, she became known as "Ellen Sourgrapes". Four years later she ran against Glendening again. Glendening was extremely unpopular--a poll or two pegged him to be the most unpopular governor in the country. He was in the same position as Grey Davis was before the recall.
But MD hated Sauerbrey more. What was supposed to be a close election ended up being a 56-44% victory for Glendening. People hated Sauerbey and thought of her as a sore loser.
That is something Edwards should remember and learn from.
I think that on some level he does have a point. There are some on the left who look askance and get angry at any mention of religion whatsoever. These are the people who whine about the Pledge of Allegiance, the Soledad Cross, and "In God We Trust" on the money. These folks get angry when any Democrat makes any slight mention of faith.
I think that the point he is making, though, is that Democrats are perceived as being hostile to the military/intelligence communities and religion by too many people in too many parts of the country. I don't see what is so offensive to his comments.
Obama is making a point. I think that the party does need to change the negative percpetions that many Americans in the interior, south, plains, and rocky mountain west have of it.
Well I honestly don't buy the argument that a "massive conspiracy" was afoot by Ehrlich to make sure that Edwards didn't win. To me it seems like it was more a matter of incompetence than willful malfeasance. I don't think there was intention fraud committed.
I say this because Ehrlich would have seen to it that William Donald Schaffer had won the Controller's race. Schaffer has been one of his best Democratic supporters. Even Janet Owens has been somewhat "friendly" to Ehrlich. Ehrlich would not have wanted Franchot to win that primary. So if there was a "massive conspiracy", why was Franchot allowed to win then then?
I honestly think this is more about incompetence than intentional ballot-box stuffing or election fraud. I don't think any election in MD was "stolen".
You hit a very important point. Minority-Majority redistricting has been a disaster for the Democratic Party. Starting in the 1990s these districts basically created several more opportunities for the Republicans.
These districts often make little sense geopolitically. In fact they rarely make sense excpet that they have one thing in common: race. These districts look like bizzare parasites, amoebas, intenstines, and other weird shapes. They often go on for hundreds of miles, from one end of a state to another, taking in every black or minority precinct even though they may have no other geopolitical interest in common except for race.
A good state to look at for an example of this is Florida. Democratic voters are squeezed into a handful of minority-majority districts. For example, in the Panhandle, the strongly Democratic areas that are heavily black are thrown into the 2nd district represented by Allen Boyd. This turns the rest of the districts into heavily Republican dominated strongholds.
FL-3 belongs to Corrine Brown. It basically snakes down from Jacksonville to Orlando via Gainesville, taking every black and Democratic precinct north of south Florida into one district. This, in turn, renders the other Jacksonville and Orlando-based districts into heavily white Republican strongholds. Ginnie Brown-Waite was able to take the 5th from Karen Thurman because she lost Gainesville to Brown. Ric Keller of Orlando ends up with a more favorable district. Thus perhaps 2 or 3 competetive districts disappear and become GOP strongholds.
In the Tampa area the 11th district held by Jim Davis takes in every minority precint in the area. As a result the other Hillsborough County based districts turn heavily Republican. The 11th also takes out the heaivly Democratic parts of Pinnellas County, leaving Bill Young with a distirct that, while still marginal and competetive, is somewhat favorable to him. Thus in this area maybe one or two districts that might be more competetive for Democrats are heavily Republican.
The map then turns to South Florida. Kendrick Meek and Alcee Hastings basically take every black precinct in Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade counties. Alcee Hastings also takes the rural parts of South Florida most friendly to the Democrats. Meanwhile, Robert Wexler and Debbie Wasserman-Schulz take in every friendly Democratic retiree, Jewish precinct in Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade counties.
By conceeding the 17th, 19th, 20th, and 23rd districts to the Democrats, Mark Foley, Clay Shaw, the Diaz-Balart brothers, and Ilena Ros-Lehtinen end up with very favorable districts. In fact the 25th district is very illogical. It connects Collier County, which is more Naples-centered to Homestead, Culter Ridge, and Naranja in Dade County. This district has nothing in common with each other.
Thus a state that voted 52%-47% for Bush in 2004 is heavily dominated by Republicans in its Congressional delegation. This is why 18 out of the 25 districts in Florida belong to the Republicans.
My original point still stands, though. If Ehrlich rigged the elections, why would he have allowed Schaffer to lose. Schaffer is one of his strongest Democratic supporters. Owens also has been semi-supportive of him. So why would Ehrlich have allowed them both to lose to Franchot?
If Ehrlich et al "wanted to steal the election", then why didn't they arrange it so that Schaffer won the primary? Why did "the powers that be" in the MD Democratic arrange it so that Stu Simms won? Simms hails from Baltimore?
Two out of the three statewide candidates are from Montgomery County. Wouldn't Ehrlich have rigged it so that Schaffer, perhaps his strongest Democratic supporter, would win?
I don't buy that some massive conspiracy apparently has kept Donna Edwards from winning. And this is someone who didn't support Wynn talking.
Sometimes, as much as some people here don't want to accept it, the voters decide to choose someone else than the "netroots favorite".
Well frankly I wasn't for Wynn, but I'd be careful about alleging some widespread conspiracy before the facts are in. I live in DC, right next to Montgomery County. Usually the coutny is very good about running elections.
I don't think some massive conspiracy is/was afoot here. I honestly don't. To me it seems like this was more a matter of incompetence. For honestly the Democrats run Montgomery County. They wouldn't have gone after to suppress their own candidates.
Two of the statewide nominees are from Montgomery County: Franchot and Gansler. If the powers that be wanted to conspire against Democrats in the DC area, if your theory were true, wouldn't Gansler and Franchot both lost? If Ehrlich and the GOP machine wanted to rig the elections in question, if they wanted to control the outcomes, they would have arranged it so that both Gansler and Franchot lost? They wouldn't have wanted Schaffer to lose. So, if this was rigged, as you are claiming, then why didn't Franchot lose? Franchot beat both Owens and Schaffer, both of whom are more close to Ehrlich.
Well, first of all, I think it brings up an important issue: Homeland Security. It specifically explains where the Bush administration has failed. My one regret is that Menendez's ad DOES NOT mention the fact that many first responders are underfunded and that tbe NJ/NY area has not gotten its fair share of HLS funding. He also doesn't mention the health problems that have afflicted many of the firemen, law enforcement, and other volunteers who assisted that day.
As for Iraq that's probably a seperate ad. So I wouldn't get angry that this ad doesn't mention Iraq. I am sure that Menendez has another set of ads planned to discuss that issue.