Wooo Hooo!

[Black Dog]

Democracy is in trouble in the states regardles sof what party is in. The amount of money needed to seek public office at a high level in the U.S. and the subbsequent need to solicit dough from special interests means that the needs of the people will always be secondary to those interests. It's a bipartisan problem (though IMO, the GOP have been the masters of political graft for some time).

[BHS]

Were we watching the same election? A bare majority of seats in the House switched sides in the one that I watched. You'd think the change would have been larger if a large majority were involved.

My understanding is that, we're it not for district gerrymandering, the sweep would have been even bigger. I'm talking a 1994 style blowout.

Well, the Dems hold the majority of governorships now, so I'm thinking that at least some of those Republican gerrymanders will be "corrected" within the next few years. Assuming the Dems aren't happy with the status quo - gerrymandering ends up creating safe seats for your opponents as well as yourself. And guys like Alcee Hastings need safe seats, what with him being an unreconstructed bribe-taking criminal and all.

[BHS]

It seemed that in the last two American elections there was so much fraud and because of this, democracy WAS at risk. I haven't heard anybody talk election fraud this time and perhaps that is because they knew the country would not sit down for it a third time. If the Republicans had won and there was no hint of fraud, that would also speak of a fair and balanced democracy at work. Yes, I admit it would not be my chosen desired outcome. But whatever is done fairly, honestly and by the people is democracy. There is overwhelming evidence that this was not the case in 2000 or 2004.

I love it. The Republicans win, the Dems scream "FRAUD!". The Republicans lose, and crickets supply the soundtrack. It flies right over your head that, even by your own description, the lack of purported election malfeasance is entirely contingent on Democratic electoral success. Meaning that it's far more likely that Democrats were poor losers than that Republicans committed fraud. But believe whatever makes you happy.

This line of reasoning reminds me of the 90's, when according to the Dems, every disagreement was caused by "Republican partisanship" and every agreement was "non-partisan", because the meme at the time was that partisanship was wrong. Get it? Partisan=wrong : Republicans pushing Republican agenda = partisan (wrong) : Republicans agreeing with Clinton = non-partisan (non-wrong). Heads I win, tails you lose.

[Ladyjen]

You could say the same of any election. American's did elect Republican's in 2000, 2002, and 2004. In the 04 election Bush won by around 3,000,000 votes. I think that's a pretty weak argument to say that since the Democrats never won more seats in 02 and 04 democracy wasn't working.

Can you present the overwhelming evidence from reliable sources. Not directed at you but their is a certain member who likes to gives tons of links to Youtube to back up their statements.

I suspect that my providing you with a link will not enlighten you in any way as I'm sure that you are just as aware of the voter fraud allegations as I. But since you requested a link here is the one that I think is the most comprehensive.

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

As there has been no formal investigation to date, it will be left up to Joe Public to have to rely on web sites, and the usual media talking heads who will argue back and forth about voter fraud. Now that the Dems have both the House and Senate I suspect and hope that we shall see an investigation at some point in the future, stay tuned!

[Black Dog]

I love it. The Republicans win, the Dems scream "FRAUD!". The Republicans lose, and crickets supply the soundtrack. It flies right over your head that, even by your own description, the lack of purported election malfeasance is entirely contingent on Democratic electoral success. Meaning that it's far more likely that Democrats were poor losers than that Republicans committed fraud. But believe whatever makes you happy.

I'd buy the "sour grapes" explanation a lot more if the Republicans started complaining about election fraud. I mean, if Republicans are cheating, it stands to reason that they wouldn't complain. Personally, I think the Republicans save all the cheating for the Presidential elections.

This line of reasoning reminds me of the 90's, when according to the Dems, every disagreement was caused by "Republican partisanship" and every agreement was "non-partisan", because the meme at the time was that partisanship was wrong. Get it? Partisan=wrong : Republicans pushing Republican agenda = partisan (wrong) : Republicans agreeing with Clinton = non-partisan (non-wrong). Heads I win, tails you lose.

Change "'90s" to "'00s" and switch Democrat and Republican and you've got a pretty good summary of the last six years. But I'd also throw a few juicy terms like "treason" "cut and run" "traitors" and others.

[BHS]

Democracy is in trouble in the states regardles sof what party is in. The amount of money needed to seek public office at a high level in the U.S. and the subbsequent need to solicit dough from special interests means that the needs of the people will always be secondary to those interests. It's a bipartisan problem (though IMO, the GOP have been the masters of political graft for some time).

This report from the Campaign Finance Institute for the 2004 election season suggests the trend is the opposite of what you're saying.

[BHS]

Scrappleface gets in on the action:

(2006-11-09) — As the Associated Press declared Democrat Jim Webb had unseated Sen. George Allen, R-VA, Democrat National Committee Chairman Howard Dean sent a team of lawyers to the Commonwealth of Virginia to investigate irregularities in several precincts, claims of fraud and the disenfranchisement of some Republican voters.

“When it comes down to about 7,000 votes in such a large state, it’s a no brainer to assume there was corruption there,” said Mr. Dean. “We’re hearing that this is a replay of Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004. Even though our guy won, and it would give Democrats the majority in the Senate, we’re committed to making sure he won legally.”

Although few Republicans have raised questions about the legality of the election, Mr. Dean said “it’s the principle of the thing that matters.”

“We plan to tie this up in court as long as possible,” the DNC chairman said, “until every vote is counted, because we believe every Republican voter counts.”

link

[Black Dog]

This report from the Campaign Finance Institute for the 2004 election season suggests the trend is the opposite of what you're saying.

No it doesn't (at leaqst on the GOP side). It says the Republicans rely more on big donors, Dems on individuals.

Kerry has raised $80 million in $1,000 and up contributions, mostly in $2000 increments. These $1000+ donations constitute 47% of his total, compared to 35% from smaller ones. Bush has raised $140 million in large donations -- about the same amount as all the Democratic candidates put together. These $1000+ contributions make up 63% of President Bush’s contributions from individuals. Most of these large contributions (and about half of Bush’s funds) have come in $2000 increments. Contributions of under $200 make up 27% of Bush’s individual contributions.

Total large ($1000+) contributions for both parties’ presidential candidates this election cycle are $279 million -- up from $117 million in 2000 (See Table 3).

The 2006 election shows about the same trend at work.

The point is, though, both rely on special interests for the bulk of their coin. Most of the Dem's money from individuals was filtered through some interest group or another (usually unions).