[davesimondotcom]

Just getting more news about the Mexican election. Aparently, the Leftist candidate can't get himself to concede the election (despite recounts) and is going to sue to try to gain office.

Hmmm... where have I heard this before?

If you can't get enough votes, bitch and moan about voting machines or ballots and ask for recount after recount. Maybe, just maybe, people will be fooled into thinking the guy who won the election is "illegitimate."

It's a great strategy. Be a poor loser and gain support from your base. Unfortunately, it doesn't WIN elections.

Well, except the Governorship of Washington and a House seat in the Montana state legislature.



So the question is: Can liberals ever concede? An election? A simple point? Can they ever just admit they are beaten, or do they have to write it off on the other side cheating or having voters too stupid to know better?

[Doofy]

Umm, dude... ...if they were to concede, it'd mean that they weren't whiney little pussies. Which they are, so they don't.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Umm, dude... ...if they were to concede, it'd mean that they weren't whiney little pussies. Which they are, so they don't.

Of all people, Richard Nixon showed them how it is supposed to be done. Despite clear evidence of fraud in the closest election ever (at the time), he conceded to JFK.

And yet they call HIM Tricky Dick.

[voodoo]

I think Richard Nixon was the greatest US president of all time. I know Ahnuld agrees with me here.

V

[Chuckit]

Can conservatives?

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Can conservatives?

Yes.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Can conservatives?

As a conservative, I will concede that liberals can't concede. Is that what you meant?

[Kevin]

It's the fuzziness

[kvm_mkdb]

SUBCOMANDANTE MARCOS: [translated] Good evening. You are listening to Radio Insurgente, the Voice of the Voiceless. We are here invading Radio 620, the music that came to stay. We want to pass on to you some information that the Sexta Commission has received. According to this information, there has been fraud in the presidential elections.

The Federal Election Institute, in complicity with the President, held a reserve of between one and 1.5 million votes to be administered in the benefit of the PAN candidate, Felipe Calderon. According to this information, in the afternoon between 5:30 and 6:00, there was a call from President Vicente Fox to Ugalde, the president of the Election Institute, asking him to change the information from the preliminary vote count, so that voting stations that benefited Calderon were entered first, and then the other votes were divided up. According to this information, the PRD candidate would have gone ahead of the PAN candidate by between one million and 1.5 million votes, but thanks to this trick, they have changed the results.

We have yet to hear what PRD and its candidate have to say. We are eager to find out what they have to say.

If you had any doubts and you watched television last night, you saw the president of the Election Institute, Mr. Ugalde's message, and immediately afterwards, within fractions of a second, Vicente Fox responding with his message. It is clear that he knew in advance what the Elections Institute was going to say before it was made public by the Institute’s president. And according to our information, they agreed to commit this fraud and impose Felipe Calderon on us.

We are not part of the electoral scene, but for moral and ethical reasons, as Zapatistas, when we see something wrong we have to say it. And what we are seeing now is that they are committing a fraud up above us. You are listening to Radio Insurgente, the Voice of the Voiceless.

http://www.radioinsurgente.org/

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by greenG4

As a conservative, I will concede that liberals can't concede. Is that what you meant?

I concede that I'm not sure what I meant.

[TheWOAT]

Obrador is probably mad at himself for losing this election. He had it in the bag 12 months ago and then the debates and some money hungry aides did him in... Video taped evidence of bribery usually isnt good for your campaign.

[pooka]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...

[saddino]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Can conservatives?

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Yes.

Yeah, right.

Republican Dino Rossi formally contested the November election yesterday, claiming that errors, negligence and misconduct have made it impossible to know who really won the closest governor's race in U.S. history.

In a lawsuit filed in Chelan County Superior Court, Rossi asked that Gov.-elect Christine Gregoire's 129-vote victory be nullified and a new election ordered.

Looks like both sides like to "sue to try to gain office" - pathetic.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by saddino

Yeah, right.




Looks like both sides like to "sue to try to gain office" - pathetic.

More votes "counted" than people eligble to vote. You left that part out.

[saddino]

Originally Posted by greenG4

More votes "counted" than people eligble to vote. You left that part out.

So, that, even if true, merits a lawsuit? I thought this thread was about how pathietic it is when a politician can't concede? Or do you mean that what this thread is really about is that conservatives are allowed to sue and whine and throw assorted tantrums about elections, but liberals aren't?

Yes, I do think that is what you mean. Got it, thanks!

[stwain2003]

Conservatives can't concede, but it pisses us off when Liberals don't concede.

[saddino]

Originally Posted by stwain2003

Conservatives can't concede, but it pisses us off when Liberals don't concede.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stwain2003

Conservatives can't concede, but it pisses us off when Liberals don't concede.

Bingo!

Actually, losing candidates in every election now seem to think concession is a bad thing. I blame Al Gore for that (and I voted for him).

However, we need MUCH better, nation-wide standards for vote-gathering technology in this country. The Federal Elections Commission ought to define a national standard for voting machine technology such that every vote cast is counted and every counted vote is legitimate. I say we use electronic (computerized) voting machines and a thumb-print scan for voter identification--The thumb-print scan would be used to verify who is the voter and not be linked to their specific vote on the voting machine. That would certainly minimize the amount of voter fraud and guarantee a much higher liklihood of accurate vote counting the first time.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by saddino

So, that, even if true, merits a lawsuit?)

Well, it IS true, and it does merit a lawsuit.

I mean, seriously, if more people vote than there are registered voters in an area, that is clearly a case of fraud.

It was only after a SECOND recount that Gregoire won by 129 votes. That's after she had lost both the original count and a second count.

It was a hand recount (anyone heard of human error) that gave her victory. Her opponent won all but 7 counties, basically proving that Seattle can overrule anything the rest of the state does.

[saddino]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Her opponent won all but 7 counties, basically proving that the majority of voters in Washington can overrule anything the rest of the state does.

Fixed.

Similarly, Bush won more districts than Gore, yet lost the popular vote. Numbers of counties won or lost are meaningless, but I suppose that factoid may has some merit in attempting to imply that a point has been made.

And if you're actually arguing that suing to win an election is valid, then I assume you don't agree with the premise of this thread at all.

Fact is, politicians by nature will defend a close lost election, regardless of party or political philosphy. Which is why this thread really is rather meaningless, no?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by saddino

Fact is, politicians by nature will defend a close lost election, regardless of party or political philosphy. Which is why this thread really is rather meaningless, no?

[Dakar]

I concede that we can't concede</paradox>

[TheWOAT]

There hasnt been a recount in Mexico, just an overview of the tallies for each precinct, although inconsistent tally sheets had their corresponding boxes opened for hand counts (100s of boxes were opened and hand counted).

Obrador will not conceed because the law allows him to present evidence to a tribunal of any irregularities, and maybe he can get the IFE to go back and do a hand count of ALL votes. No suing will be necessary, yet.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by greenG4

More votes "counted" than people eligble to vote. You left that part out.

Because it's irrelevant? I mean, that falls into the original post's accusation of "writing it off as the other side cheating," doesn't it?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Bingo!

Actually, losing candidates in every election now seem to think concession is a bad thing. I blame Al Gore for that (and I voted for him).

However, we need MUCH better, nation-wide standards for vote-gathering technology in this country. The Federal Elections Commission ought to define a national standard for voting machine technology such that every vote cast is counted and every counted vote is legitimate. I say we use electronic (computerized) voting machines and a thumb-print scan for voter identification--The thumb-print scan would be used to verify who is the voter and not be linked to their specific vote on the voting machine. That would certainly minimize the amount of voter fraud and guarantee a much higher liklihood of accurate vote counting the first time.

Al doing that really had nothing to do with the voting machines.

It was a political ploy to undermine the administration from the start.

[Troll]

Berlusconi - liberal?

[Y3a]

I think it has more to do with the personality type who would BE a liberal that causes them to act like babies when they loose a point, election, etc.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Because it's irrelevant? I mean, that falls into the original post's accusation of "writing it off as the other side cheating," doesn't it?

Except more votes than voters is proof of fraud, not speculation.

Meanwhile, whining about chads and Diebold is all the Democrats have when it comes to 2000 and 2004.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Except more votes than voters is proof of fraud, not speculation.

Meanwhile, whining about chads and Diebold is all the Democrats have when it comes to 2000 and 2004.

I haven't heard about 2004 outside of the same wackos who talk about black helicopters or 9/11 conspiracies, but in 2000 more people in Florida DID vote for Gore than Bush, by several thousands. Sure, enough could be thrown out due to legalities that either one of them could have won, but I find it hard to believe that Republicans could criticize Gore when clearly more people in Florida voted for him to be president.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I haven't heard about 2004 outside of the same wackos who talk about black helicopters or 9/11 conspiracies, but in 2000 more people in Florida DID vote for Gore than Bush, by several thousands. Sure, enough could be thrown out due to legalities that either one of them could have won, but I find it hard to believe that Republicans could criticize Gore when clearly more people in Florida voted for him to be president.

What we're talking about in Washington isn't someone getting more votes than someone else. It's someone getting more votes than their opponent, but in one county (King County - Seattle), there were more votes counted than there were voters counted.

Meaning: There is a chance that some people's votes were counted twice. And when an election is won statewide by under 200 votes, 100 people getting their vote counted twice swings the election.

I won't rehash 2000 except to say that Gore set himself up for it all. I don't buy the "Gore got more votes" deal, not even nationwide, considering some western states never counted ALL of their votes once it was clear who would win the state. (Our home state is one of them. Bush was winning by a wide enough margin they stopped counting votes.)

Do I think it's possible that Gore got more votes nationwide? Sure. Very possible. Does it matter in the least? Not a bit. It's like saying that your favorite team gained more yards than the other team, but the scoreboard reads 10-7 with your team being 7.

In Florida, Gore and his team made a choice before the election that if it was close, they would ask for a recount in certain counties. Their fatal mistake was cherry picking counties. Had they asked for a statewide recount, who knows...

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Except more votes than voters is proof of fraud, not speculation.

Meanwhile, whining about chads and Diebold is all the Democrats have when it comes to 2000 and 2004.

And? The criticism here was just that Democrats do this. It wasn't that Democrats have never had a valid reason to do this (in fact, the 2000 election was pretty darn close).

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

And? The criticism here was just that Democrats do this. It wasn't that Democrats have never had a valid reason to do this (in fact, the 2000 election was pretty darn close).

The 2000 election was a virtual dead heat. I'm not denying that.

But an election being close is NOT a valid reason to claim the opponent cheated.

[Chuckit]

No, but it is just as valid a reason not to concede immediately as believing your opponent cheated.

[Dakar]

This is where a non-winner-takes-all electoral system would be better.

[Y3a]

Originally Posted by BRussell

...but in 2000 more people in Florida DID vote for Gore than Bush, by several thousands. Sure, enough could be thrown out due to legalities that either one of them could have won, but I find it hard to believe that Republicans could criticize Gore when clearly more people in Florida voted for him to be president.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++
George W. Bush would have won a hand recount of all disputed ballots in Florida's presidential election if the most widely accepted standard for judging votes had been applied, the first comprehensive examination of the ballots shows. However, the review of 171,908 ballots also reveals that voting mistakes by thousands of Democratic voters — errors that legally disqualified their ballots — probably cost former vice president Al Gore 15,000 to 25,000 votes. That's enough to have decisively won Florida and the White House. Gore's best chance to win was lost before the ballots were counted, the study shows. Voters' confusion with ballot instruction and design and voting machines appears to have changed the course of U.S. history.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++

Please! By ANY SET OF STANDARDS USED, Gore LOST FLA. Sorry you missed it.(your tinfoil hat must have blocked your vision) The newspapers and media paid a bunch of accounting folks to go and 'see for themselves' what the vote was. With any of the standards they used, Gore came up short every time. Even funnier is that the DEMOCRATIC elections officials and their precincts were the most mis-managed and had the most questionable votes.

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Just getting more news about the Mexican election. Aparently, the Leftist candidate can't get himself to concede the election (despite recounts) and is going to sue to try to gain office.

Hmmm... where have I heard this before?

If you can't get enough votes, bitch and moan about voting machines or ballots and ask for recount after recount. Maybe, just maybe, people will be fooled into thinking the guy who won the election is "illegitimate."

It's a great strategy. Be a poor loser and gain support from your base. Unfortunately, it doesn't WIN elections.

Well, except the Governorship of Washington and a House seat in the Montana state legislature.



So the question is: Can liberals ever concede? An election? A simple point? Can they ever just admit they are beaten, or do they have to write it off on the other side cheating or having voters too stupid to know better?

What a bizarre spin to make it seem like it's a "liberal" thing. We all remember Berlusconi now, don't we?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Y3a

George W. Bush would have won a hand recount of all disputed ballots in Florida's presidential election if the most widely accepted standard for judging votes had been applied, the first comprehensive examination of the ballots shows. However, the review of 171,908 ballots also reveals that voting mistakes by thousands of Democratic voters — errors that legally disqualified their ballots — probably cost former vice president Al Gore 15,000 to 25,000 votes. That's enough to have decisively won Florida and the White House. Gore's best chance to win was lost before the ballots were counted, the study shows. Voters' confusion with ballot instruction and design and voting machines appears to have changed the course of U.S. history.

Bush won, I'm not arguing that, but I have to make it clear because you make it sound like it was a clear victory and that Gore was an idiot to want a recount. In a very close race, ballots are re-examined, even those originally disqualified (such as only partially punched.) They only did a recount in those specific counties, but not for the whole state of Florida. If the entire state had a recount, not just the contested counties, Gore would have won the recount.

Republicans like to discount the confusing ballots as well, but people get tricked by the simplest things. There are age problems, cultural differences, etc. that would make the ballot confusing.

What's worse, I think for Democrats, is that they couldn't beat him the second time. I'm not sure if it just shows how pathetic the Democratic candidates are, or how pathetic the national average of intelligence of U.S. voters is.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

If the entire state had a recount, not just the contested counties, Gore would have won the recount.

And it was the Gore camp that chose to do only those counties.

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Republicans like to discount the confusing ballots as well, but people get tricked by the simplest things. There are age problems, cultural differences, etc. that would make the ballot confusing.

Sorry, I'm not buying that. Were the butterfly ballots pieces of crap? Sure. But if some people can't figure it out, they can ask for help. They are told that when they are given their ballot. They can also ask for another ballot if somehow they mess up. And, they were also told to completely push through the chad.

Originally Posted by olePigeon

What's worse, I think for Democrats, is that they couldn't beat him the second time. I'm not sure if it just shows how pathetic the Democratic candidates are, or how pathetic the national average of intelligence of U.S. voters is.

It's funny how in one paragraph you say that the "confusing ballots" and people being "tricked" are responsible for an election result - then in the very next paragraph, you call those who voted for Bush as being of lower intelligence. Yet, they obviously figured out the ballot!

I've said it about a hundred times on this board. Democrats (and those who aren't Dems but don't like Bush) will NOT WIN elections until they manage to figure out that voters ARE NOT STUPID.

Just because someone disagrees with you, does not make them stupid.

Once you give up on that theory, you'll have a lot better shot of convincing people to swing around to "your side." I mean, after all, if you are basically telling someone they are stupid, why would they support you?

(Please note that when I say "you" in the above paragraphs, I'm not saying specifically OlePigeon. I'm saying "you" in the general sense. Perhaps I should use the term "one" but it sounds so odd.)

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

until they manage to figure out that voters ARE NOT STUPID.)

That depends on your definition of stupid. Both sides have plenty of voters who buy into campaign ads that misrepresent the facts.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Y3a

Please! By ANY SET OF STANDARDS USED, Gore LOST FLA. Sorry you missed it.(your tinfoil hat must have blocked your vision) The newspapers and media paid a bunch of accounting folks to go and 'see for themselves' what the vote was. With any of the standards they used, Gore came up short every time. Even funnier is that the DEMOCRATIC elections officials and their precincts were the most mis-managed and had the most questionable votes.

It's this kind of revisionism that shows how in denial you are.

In some of the recount scenarios, Bush would have won, and in others, Gore would have won. But no serious person disputes that more people in Florida - on the order of thousands - voted for Gore. Sure, Bush got away with excluding so many votes on legal technicalities, and delayed things with lawsuits long enough that he got the decision. But that fact has to be seen in the context of the reality that more people in Florida voted for Gore.

Again, I didn't bring this up. This thread was started by someone criticizing Democrats/liberals. But I can't let it go when people claim that Bush really did get more votes. He did not. He only won because enough Gore votes could be excluded on legal technicalities.

BTW: davesimon - the law specifically required Gore to do it on a county-by-county basis. There was no specific provision for a statewide recount in the law. I don't think you can blame Gore for that.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by BRussell

It's this kind of revisionism that shows how in denial you are.

In some of the recount scenarios, Bush would have won, and in others, Gore would have won. But no serious person disputes that more people in Florida - on the order of thousands - voted for Gore. Sure, Bush got away with excluding so many votes on legal technicalities, and delayed things with lawsuits long enough that he got the decision. But that fact has to be seen in the context of the reality that more people in Florida voted for Gore.

Again, I didn't bring this up. This thread was started by someone criticizing Democrats/liberals. But I can't let it go when people claim that Bush really did get more votes. He did not. He only won because enough Gore votes could be excluded on legal technicalities.

BTW: davesimon - the law specifically required Gore to do it on a county-by-county basis. There was no specific provision for a statewide recount in the law. I don't think you can blame Gore for that.

I don't think he said that Bush actually got more votes. His post specifically mentioned that there were thousands of votes that were screwed up and cost Gore the election. The point is that these "technicalities" were legitimate and the election was not "stolen" or "rigged".

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by smacintush

I don't think he said that Bush actually got more votes. His post specifically mentioned that there were thousands of votes that were screwed up and cost Gore the election. The point is that these "technicalities" were legitimate and the election was not "stolen" or "rigged".

I agree with that, but what I never hear acknowledged is that more Floridians voted for Gore than Bush. It's always "the recounts confirm that Bush won!" which is a half-truth at best.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I agree with that, but what I never hear acknowledged is that more Floridians voted for Gore than Bush. It's always "the recounts confirm that Bush won!" which is a half-truth at best.

That's all I was pointing out.

[Y3a]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Bush got away with excluding so many votes on legal technicalities, and delayed things with lawsuits long enough that he got the decision.

GORE the one WHO LOST was the first to court. Looks like you are the revisionist now!

BUSH was in no position to "get away with exclusions" because that was Florida's job. Again you don't have the factual specifics right.

You ARE proving my point with your liberal nonsense.

[Y3a]

Would you say that those who voted for Buchannan instead of Gore voted for Gore or Buchannan?

I say they legally (and in the typical stupid liberal sloppy manner) voted for Pat.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Y3a

GORE the one WHO LOST was the first to court. Looks like you are the revisionist now!

He didn't say Bush was first to court.

Originally Posted by Y3a

BUSH was in no position to "get away with exclusions" because that was Florida's job. Again you don't have the factual specifics right.

Who's the govenor of Florida?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Y3a

BUSH was in no position to "get away with exclusions" because that was his brother's job.

Fixed.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Y3a

GORE the one WHO LOST was the first to court. Looks like you are the revisionist now!

Gore requested recounts, which are specifically provided in the law and don't involve suing anyone in court. Bush then sued Gore in court to stop the recounts. The Supreme Court case was Bush v. Gore, not Gore v. Bush. Sorry, but sued Gore, not the other way around. Gore requested recounts.

BUSH was in no position to "get away with exclusions" because that was Florida's job. Again you don't have the factual specifics right.

You ARE proving my point with your liberal nonsense.

He certainly was the beneficiary of "Florida's job," no? And his campaign certainly paid all those lawyers, including many well-known Republican lawyers, to sue Gore.