Unwanted Voting Advice – Moon of Alabama

November 7, 2006

Unwanted Voting Advice

If the your vote today is about Iraq – you should not vote for a Democrat for congress.

The Democrats in congress, with a fresh mandate and perceived credibility, will not press for US forces to leave Iraq. They agree with the general imperial project. They only want it do be done right. They want to win what cannot be won. Doing it right means more US troops to Iraq, not less. It also means attacking Iran and Syria.

That direction was obvious and acclaimed when Lamont, as an perceived anti-war candidate, did win the primaries in Connecticut. Then, the Democratic party committed to guarantee Lieberman’s Senat seniority position should he win as an Independent. In effect, this sabotaged Lamont’s campaign and guaranteed to deliver one more vote for the general escalation strategy.

The current Democratic party is not against the imperial agenda of full spectrum dominance and further colonizing the Middle East – far from it.

They will give Iraq "one more try" and another one and another and they will support further troop deployments and they will support the escalation into Iran and Syria. As more seats they win today as more they will do so. Bush will say "thank you" and use the additional troops to fortify the green zone while sending the cruise missiles to Tehran. And don’t think for a moment that the Dems will protest that mass murder.

Israel is already preparing for the action and even has been told about the timeframe. IDF preparing for another conflict by next summer – guess why. Can you imagine a Democratic congress blocking funds for the current or a further war? Use the only way they have to stop it? I can not.

So if you base your tiny voter decision on the issue of Iraq, you probably should vote for a Republican. Let her/him take the blame for what will unfold and hope for a more real change in 2008. There even may be an anti-war movement by then.

A real change and a genuine powerful anti-war movement requires more military and economic calamities resulting in more pressure from the street resulting in more politicians evolving who really want to stop the killing.

The Vietnam war did not end because the Dems or the Repubs lost just interest in the subject. It ended because the US public did see the inevitable defeat and folks took to the streets and demanded to end the slaughter. On Iraq, the US public is by far not there yet.

Posted by b on November 7, 2006 at 07:05 UTC | Permalink

Comments

attacking Iran is so dumb that it could only happen out of sheer desperation or bitter spite.
somehow, I doubt that the Dems are close enough to such a collective state of minnd.
the Dems may look spineless in their current Republican-lite-morph state. But there is quite a bit of political calculation behind it all. They would like to stay within some “sweet spot” in the political center that keeps them attractive to middle-class voters, especially those fed up with Bushism, whilst holding on to their traditional Dem base.
its not a very inspiring approach.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Nov 7 2006 7:53 utc | 1

Sure hope you’re wrong on that b. Hope they listen to Murtha if the numbers change in congress tomorrow.

Posted by: Ben | Nov 7 2006 9:23 utc | 2

The American public sees this midterm election as a national referendum on stopping this stupidity writ large we call the Bush Administration.
A sleeping giant is stirring, and looking for Republicans to step on.
The Democratic course from here to 2008 will be to pull on all the loose ends of the Bush Administration and the Republican side of the aisle. Those loose ends will unravel deep pockets of putrid corruption, and turn the GOP into a soggy raft of rats leaping overboard when they are not biting one another. Their grand coalition is over, probably for a generation — if these investigations are forceful enough to reveal the truth.
Iraq? There is no way to stay, and no way to expand it. Even one million troops, one thousand concentration camps, and one hundred bombing missions every day will accomplish nothing but a faster disintegration of the ethnic tribes there into little statelets, none of which will sign long term oil contracts with us — and that was all that this war was ever about.
We will be chased out, or forced out, or simply leave, and it will be Republicans who catch Bugout Fever the worst. There is no way they can approach 2008 with troops still over there, and hope to win anything at all.
There will be a lot of cheating today from the GOP, and a lot of legal battles after the fact. But the House at least will become an investigative body from this point on, and it will undo the Bush Administration in a legalized version of the Death of Ten Thousand Cuts.
The Democrats would probably like to go to Tehran; you are right about that. But the Dems reference reality before they act. Reality is, we cannot touch Iran except with nukes, and that is something the Dems will not do.

Posted by: Antifa | Nov 7 2006 9:35 utc | 3

I approach the election as a citizen of an occupied country. The government of occupation is the Republicrat/Demoplican complex. Heads they win, tails we lose.
So what did I do. I’m out of the country and mailed my ballot in two weeks ago. I voted for Democrats across the board, with the exception of a Green for Supreme Court Justice. My vote won’t mean much, because I vote in TX. Kay Bailey Hutchison will be reelected in the Senate and Solomon Ortiz will be reelected in my Congressional District.
But we’re in for a really bad time if the Republicrats hold onto power and get away with it. Whether the Demoplicans do take power or not we will still have to make plans to knock them off one by one in 2008, but the slide into the abyss on the Constitutional front might slow down if they are in the majority until then.
Too, I hope that knocking down the guys with their thumbs in our eyes will thaw out the electorate, make us all more active.
I have no illusions about the Demoplicans.
Perle and the rest of the neocons were singing the Demoplican tune when they complained of the inability of the present regime to take their direction. Those statements weren’t supposed to be released before the election, they were supposed to be the neocon opener to the new majority. Perle fells “betrayed”, if you can imagine what he might mean by that.
You’ve got the Iraq part nailed.
But voting Republicrat is not a positve move along any axis I can think of.
But I have discounted the axis of spite.

Posted by: John Francis Lee | Nov 7 2006 10:17 utc | 4

Isn’t Hil a leading Democrat.
“The senator’s statements, in which she said the administration should make it clear that all options remain on the table for dealing with the Iranians, came during a speech about the Middle East on Wednesday night at Princeton University. She criticized the White House for turning the problem over to European nations and said Iran must never be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons.”
I take all to mean all. Thats why I voted Green for Senator. As Barry Goldwater said… “not a nickels worth of difference … ”
I think there will only be a change if this vote turns into a Tsunami and scares them all straight.

Posted by: Bill Galt | Nov 7 2006 10:42 utc | 5

Look, the main thing is that the Democrats might actually listen to their constituents if they disagree on policy. They are also at least marginally sane. We have seen that the Republicans listen to no one and pursue insane policies.
There’s a clear choice where I live…and I’m heading out right now to vote. Early, if not often.

Posted by: hopping madbunny | Nov 7 2006 11:15 utc | 6

Posted by: jonku | Nov 7 2006 11:41 utc | 7

Thank you Antifa, JFL, and madbunny. I’ll run into the streets screaming if I have to hear about another “mandate”. As always. The lesser of two evils.

Posted by: Anonymous | Nov 7 2006 12:23 utc | 8

8 was me.

Posted by: beq | Nov 7 2006 12:24 utc | 9

“something the Dems will not do”
“might slow down “
“the Democrats might actually listen to their constituents”
“the lesser of two evils”
.. still believe in the system, huh?

Posted by: DM | Nov 7 2006 12:59 utc | 10

“.. still believe in the system, huh?”
Uh, no. Thought that was clear.

Posted by: beq | Nov 7 2006 13:10 utc | 11

I have a similar dillemma here in Canada, a choice of two mainstream parties, but also a middle party. I don’t like them either.
I always vote for the Green party at least so far. They are the only one that attempts to offer what I want — decoupling from the industrial bandwagon and ideas that are their own, not corporate inspired.
They haven’t won, yet.
Posted by: jonku | Nov 7, 2006 6:41:41 AM | 7
I hear ya – loud and clear. One day I found I just couldn’t vote NDP any more. Just couldn’t do it. Been voting Green. I sort of like their positions nationally, and at the Ontario level I like their policies a lot.
———————————–
Bernhard: Good post, but you didn’t do full disclosure. The US is currently a borderline fascist state. The Republican Party is not borderline fascist. It is outright fascist. One always runs the risk that there will not be a meaningful election in 2008. Of course we are assuming that there is a meaningful election today – and that may already be a stretch.

Posted by: edwin | Nov 7 2006 13:26 utc | 12

William Pfaff:

Whatever happens in the American midterm elections, George Bush remains president of the United States until January 2009, and nothing will change in America’s Iraq policy unless he decides that it change. As he likes to remind his fellow-citizens, he is The Decider.
Thus Democratic politicans’ arguments about what should be done are of intellectual interest only (if that is not an exaggeration). Like most of the proposals offered by American critics of the war, they rest on unrealistic assumptions.
…
The political interest of the Bush administration is still to “stay the course” for two more years, so that eventual failure in Iraq can be blamed on Bush’s successor. The Democrats want the war ended before the next presidential election, but failing that, their actual interest would be to see another Republican president elected, so they are not blamed for how the affair eventually ends. What happens to the Iraqi people, and the American soldiers fighting the war, comes last in these calculations.
…
The common Washington and U.S. press view that it’s the elites in Europe who are hostile to American leadership is wrong. The general public is more anti-American, by a big margin. This presumably is a judgment on Bush administration policies in Iraq and the so-called war against terror.
Europe’s political classes are watching the U.S. midterm elections looking for a message of change. They blame the Bush administration for a grave deterioration in western relations with the Islamic world, plus serious internal tensions concerning Moslems in their own populations.
Whatever the election outcome, they are likely to be disappointed. Neither Democrats nor Republicans have a practical program for ending the Iraq crisis.

Posted by: b | Nov 7 2006 13:27 utc | 13

Antifa, I hope you are right, but my gut feeling is more like Bernhards scenario will play out. Really hope you are right!

Posted by: Fran | Nov 7 2006 13:58 utc | 14

I do not think that the Irag war will be affected much by this election. The war will run its course and the coalition troops will either be pulled out in 2009 by the next president or the guerillas will cut the supply lines to Baghdad and eventually turn the Green zone into a killing zone. Similarily reality – not elections – will limit attacks on Iran.
So if I have to give an advice, I advice voting against fascism in USA. Wheter this is to vote for a democrat that might not rubberstamp surveilliance and torture or voting green to show try to give the democrats some spine by not being able to take all non-republican votes for granted. And if enough people do it some greens might start to be elected on the federal level. I can not see what good voting for the republicans would do.

Posted by: a swedish kind of death | Nov 7 2006 14:32 utc | 15

Sad to seee the contortions that good people make to vote. The dems won’t even notice. They are well aware that people on the left of amerikan politics hold their nose and tick the dem box.
Therefore after this election they will spend their time trying to replace the rethugs in the minds of the Fox TV zombies. Especially the dozens of dem politicians who consider themselves ‘presidential material’.
Those hubris addled assholes won’t only be selling themself as the nicest facist in the room to the voters, they will be trying to demonstrate to anyone with a few bucks (ie corporate amerika who believe that only a low wage low tax economy can work for them) that they aren’t like any of the other dems. That this politician would never put the interests of the sweaty masses ahead of the elites’ concerns.
So that is the senate fucked no matter how many seats the dems win. In fact it is likely that the more they win the worse they will pander to the right since it will seem even more likely that ‘destiny will prevail’.
It’s the paradox of two party democracy in the 21st century that politicians pander to the voters they want and ignore the voters they have.
I hate to say it but the left needs to take a page outta the xtian fundie playbook. The xtians won’t vote for a candidate that won’t toe the line so the rethugs are very circumspect about hawking their fork for a few votes.
None of this will change until sufficient voters force a third party into the arena. Yes that does make instant gratification impossible but the longer voters prevaricate the further away real political change remains.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Nov 7 2006 14:39 utc | 16

Music to Vote by.

Posted by: edwin | Nov 7 2006 14:51 utc | 17

I can not see what good voting for the republicans would do.
There are an unknown number of fringe left voters who vote Republican. If I understand it, the reasoning is as follows. The major difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is that the Democrats are slightly more competent and slightly less fascistic than the Republicans. The Democrats are every bit as violent on the international level – if not more so.
If you believe in freedom, it does not matter if you vote Republican or Democrat. You are going to get fascism. The Republicans will do it faster and with less competence.
The major advantage to voting Republican is that it will do more damage to the United States – quicker. While this will not help Americans, it will help all the countries that the US intervenes in. The Democrats will probably manage years longer of intervention than the Republicans will before the money runs out.

Posted by: edwin | Nov 7 2006 15:01 utc | 18

It begins
more in Virginia

Posted by: beq | Nov 7 2006 15:35 utc | 19

For election problems – try the following site as well:
http://www.votersunite.org/electionproblems.asp

Posted by: edwin | Nov 7 2006 15:43 utc | 20

more music.

Posted by: beq | Nov 7 2006 15:54 utc | 21

What to do if you have trouble voting

Posted by: beq | Nov 7 2006 16:04 utc | 22

So, it’s like the old Communists of Weimar Republic? “First Hitler, then we come”?

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Nov 7 2006 16:06 utc | 23

grrr
baring teeth

Posted by: annie | Nov 7 2006 16:15 utc | 24

barring fangs cornered

Posted by: annie | Nov 7 2006 16:18 utc | 25

Exit-Poll Secrecy Measures Aim to Plug Leaks to Blogs

Two-by-two, polling specialists from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News and the Associated Press will go into rooms in New York and Washington shortly before noon Tuesday. Their cellphones and BlackBerrys will be confiscated; proctors will monitor the doors; and for the next five hours, these experts will pore over exit-poll data from across the country.
If all goes well, only when they emerge from their cloisters will the legions of ravenous political bloggers have any chance of getting their hands on the earliest indication of which party will end up controlling Congress.
“The demand for info is intense, and if the safeguards aren’t steel doors bolting people inside a room, it will get out,” says Marc Ambinder, associate editor of National Journal’s Hotline OnCall. “The insatiable appetite for this info will overwhelm the ability to keep it secret.”

per wsj online

Posted by: beq | Nov 7 2006 16:24 utc | 26

on iraq/iran i have no confidence in the dems, but i cannot endorse the republicans. my compromise solution was to vote working families which might send a message to the dems that they do not have my support although the candidate i voted for in the end was a dem candidate. pains me to think i just voted for hilary clinton, but i do not have the stomach to choose the republican alternative and to vote green at this point seems the same as throwing a vote to the repugs at this point. i could be wrong on this last point.
as an aside, in this election in nyc we have jimmy mcmillan running against eliot spitzer on the “rent is too damn high” ballot. came across one of his cars yesterday morning – old-fashioned loudspeakers attached – broadcasting to commuters emerging from penn station. have to say it brought a smile to my lips to see old style campaigning happening. if spitzer wasn’t such a strong candidate i would have considered throwing my vote in that direction. he’s right – the rent is too damned high!

Posted by: conchita | Nov 7 2006 16:27 utc | 27

“The insatiable appetite for this info will overwhelm the ability to keep it secret.”
sure sign that this ain’t no democracy if it’s imperative to keep exit poll data secret. wonder if those journo’s ever pondered on that…

Posted by: b real | Nov 7 2006 16:39 utc | 28

they don’t want the exit polling to contradict the diebold outcome like it did last time, until they shut it down and re formatted it only to be outted by bloogers who took screenshots. still , the msm are refusing to publicly release the original data. they are nipping that possiblity in the bud. bigtime

Posted by: annie | Nov 7 2006 17:09 utc | 29

I’ll vote dem, if only for the hope of seeing that 51% thing blown to smitheriens. And karl rove with it.

Posted by: anna missed | Nov 7 2006 17:35 utc | 30

So if you base your tiny voter decision on the issue of Iraq, you probably should vote for a Republican. Let her/him take the blame for what will unfold and hope for a more real change in 2008.
Can’t buy this. The country needs to see that this is really a one party state, defined as two by sharpening differences over social issues that don’t matter much to the ownership class. I know too many who believe that things will get better when the folks in the blue jerseys take over. If Dems win both houses, those who cheer for the red jerseys will now have blue jerseys to boo and hiss at for pursuing the same objectives they once cheered the red team for advancing while those who root for the blue team will have a choice: defend what they previously condemned or acknowledge that they, too, have been deceived. Hopefully, this time – with a debacle so obvious that people of average intelligence can’t be numbed into believing disingenuous storylines by corporate news soma – significant numbers of fans of both teams will walk out of the stadium. We need this tar baby to stick to both parties. Only then can a meaningful third party arise from disaffected elements of red and blue team fans.
I voted for Webb for Senator, a traditional conservative who left the Republican Party over the Iraq war, and as many local third party candidates as were on the ballot and Dems when there was no third party candidate. (Dems won’t win here anyway.) But my rationale for favoring Dems this time is to divide the ruling class for a while the same way they divide the masses they seek to control. We can’t have no imperialism, so I’d rather have a conflicted imperialist class in power that spends energy squabbling with each other than advancing their real agenda. This won’t really help the US, but it might spare some in other parts of the world some US inflicted misery – Venezuela and Bolivia, for example. In short, slow the beast down, buy time and wait for it’s sorry economic condition to finally kill it.

Posted by: lonesomeG | Nov 7 2006 17:38 utc | 31

I don’t base my tiny vote on the Iraq War along. It is a mess. I do think the total war is less likely with a dem, but who knows.
however, I also base my vote on the environment. on a woman’s right to choose what to do with her body. on telling the republican panty sniffers to get out of my drawers. I vote against a theocracy led by closeted, self-hating religious nuts.
the dems put forth a min. wage increase.
I vote for the dems in order to show that there are big numbers that do not agree with the current administration.
i vote against the crew that doesn’t even TRY to broker some sort of solution between Israel/Pakistan.
Anyone who votes for a republican as a way to “bring down the system” – I have a bridge to sell you. I think you are just as outside of the “reality-based” community as the Bushies…just for different reasons. And I don’t know why I should consider you as someone who cares about human rights, for instance, with such willingness to hurt innocent people.
And so what the fuck. Yes, I vote against. I always have. But until you change the rules for the election of Senators, that’s what you’ve got, unless you have video tape of Bush and Gannon. For the cynics — well, what other choice is there, other than leaving? (and, yes, that is a possible part of my future.) How can you be so naive as to think that you can change what’s going on by any way other than politics? — as in a group effort to lobby for what you want? Or what others deserve?
But obviously, vote what your conscience tells you to do.

Posted by: fauxreal | Nov 7 2006 18:36 utc | 32

In some ways people can trick themselves much better than any politician can. It will be interesting to compare the wide range of reasons people are using to vote dem this time with what excuses will be used to vote dem ‘one last time’ in 2008.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Nov 7 2006 18:48 utc | 33

Debs- your smarmy sense of your own superiority (which is not universally held) is humorous, tho obviously not intentionally. I refer you to my suggestion on a previous thread.

Posted by: fauxreal | Nov 7 2006 19:02 utc | 34

Thank you, Clueless Joe.
I’m as left as we have them on my campus, but if I hear one more leftist advocating a strategic break with the Democrats, I’m going to lose my mind.
America will not go so far right as to swing back to the left. That will not happen! Giving in to the right only gives more to the right. It’s relatively simple.
You’d think, after a hundred years of rightist gains on leftist in-fighting, we’d learn. I’m really surprised to read such bullshit on this website. If you think the revolution is inevitable, you need to shut up, because some of us are trying to be realistic.

Posted by: Lennonist | Nov 7 2006 19:18 utc | 35

I find Bernhard’s predictions to be far too dire. The imperial project is something that few Americans think about; they don’t see the nation through that kind of lens. And certainly the vast majority is not casting a conscious vote for empire, in choosing either republicans or democrats. However, Americans have figured out that Iraq is a quagmire; and only Senator McCain (a republican) has endorsed the crackpot idea of sending more US troops into “the valley of death”.
No good, present or prospective, can be had by voting republican. If there are places on the ballot where democrats are not enrolled, it is better to vote Green or Libertarian. At this crucial point in our political history, voting republican will push us farther along– with the party’s corporate handshake– toward fascism.
At this point Americans must vote for the Democrats, to have hope of bringing US troops home and ending the Occupation of Iraq. We are reminded that due process of law, habeas corpus, standards of civil rights and basic human rights, are under assualt by a republican administration and a rubberstamping republican Congress.
This is not a political decision to screw around with. I hope to God that the majority of my fellow Americans vote for democrats today. Every day we spend living under this dark, republican cloud, is a day that brings us closer to living in a police state. For instance, there are proposed “clearance documents” to be issued by Homeland Security, which would present an unpassable barrier to some American citizens seeking to re-enter their country, and likewise would block others who might hope to leave.
A perpetual, one-party state, will be the end of our Republic; and those pundits who argue that there is no difference between the major political parties, do not take into account profound cultural struggles which are in play, and only focus on the over-reaching power of our corporations.
Political culture matters. This is the difference between a legitimate electoral process and computer gaming, between free speech and sedition, between closed borders and open ones, between viable legal protections and tyranny.

Posted by: Copeland | Nov 7 2006 19:27 utc | 36

It’s not as if the Democratic Party has tried to reach out to the far left. I suspect it wouldn’t take much – maybe principled opposition to torture and the suspension of civil liberties, instead of the tactical opposition – where a number of Democrats wouldn’t say how they would vote, and 20% still managed to support torture and the end of civil liberties. The far left know that they will be sent to the torture chambers shortly after the Muslims, if not before.
Alternatively, if the Magna Carta is too hot, saying that they would bring the troops home would have probably been acceptable. Failing both of these, offering some form of election reform that would theoretically allow them to elect their own representatives might have done it.
I hear one more leftist advocating a strategic break with the Democrats, I’m going to lose my mind.
Just how common is it do you think? I only hear it occasionally.
hundred years of rightist gains on leftist in-fighting
Not the way I read it. It looks to me like major gains have been made on the left. Gay rights, anti smoking, human rights, democracy, end of the death penalty etc etc. To me it looks like the US is collapsing – economically and socially. The gains that have been made are being lost.
As far as the in fighting goes, the reason is that the left is a rather principled group while the right is a rather opportunistic group. If you want the principle you are going to have to accept the in fighting.
I’m really surprised to read such bullshit on this website.
Why? It looks like I have correctly identified a far left voting strategy. Should we put our heads in the sand and pretend it does not exist?
Daily KOS more or less banned a discussion on Israel and the cartoons from Iran recently. I like to think that Moon of Alabama is at least one step up from Daily KOS.

Posted by: edwin | Nov 7 2006 19:38 utc | 37

Greg Palast: the election has already been stolen.
Here’s how:

Theft #1: Registrations gone with the wind.
On January 1, 2006, while America slept off New Year’s Eve hangovers, a new federal law crept out of the swamps that has devoured 1.9 million votes, overwhelmingly those of African-Americans and Hispanics. The vote-snatching statute is a cankerous codicil slipped into the 2002 Help America Vote Act — strategically timed to go into effect in this mid-term year. It requires every state to reject new would-be voters whose identity can’t be verified against a state verification database.
Sounds arcane and not too threatening. But look at the numbers and you won’t feel so fine. About 24.3 million Americans attempt to register or re-register each year. The New York University Law School’s Brennan Center told me that, under the new law, Republican Secretaries of State began the year by blocking about one in three new voters.
—
Theft #2: Turned Away – the ID game
A legion of pimple-faced Republicans with Blackberries loaded with lists of new voters is assigned to challenge citizens in heavily Black and Hispanic(i.e. Democratic) precincts to demand photo ID that perfectly matches registration data.
Sounds benign, but it’s not. The federal HAVA law and complex new ID requirements in states like New Mexico will easily allow the GOP squads to triple the number of voters turned away. Rather than deny using these voter suppression tactics, Republican spokesmen are claiming they are “protecting the integrity of the vote.”
—
Theft #3: Votes Spoiled Rotten
The nasty little secret of US elections is that three million ballots are cast in national elections but not counted — 3,600,380 not counted in 2004 according to US Election Commission stats. These are votes lost because a punch card didn’t punch (its chad got “hung”), a stray mark voided a paper ballot and other machinery glitches.
Officials call it “spoilage.” I call it, “inaugurating Republicans.” Why? According to statisticians working with the US Civil Rights Commission, the chance your vote will “spoil” this way is 900% higher for Black folk and 500% higher for Hispanics than for white voters. When we do the arithmetic, we find that well over half of all votes spoiled or “blank” are cast by voters of color. On balance, this spoilage game produces a million-vote edge for the GOP.
That’s where the Black Boxes come into play. Forget about Karl Rove messing with the software to change your vote. Rather, the big losses occur when computers crash, fail to start or simply don’t respond to your touch. They are the new spoilage machines of choice with, statistically, the same racial bias as the old vote-snatching lever machines. (Funny, but paper ballots with in-precinct scanners don’t go rotten on Black voters. Maybe that’s why Republican Secretaries of State have installed so few of them.)
So Let’s Add it Up
Two million legitimate voters will be turned away because of wrongly rejected or purged registrations.
Add another one million voters challenged and turned away for “improper ID.”
Then add yet another million for Democratic votes “spoiled” by busted black boxes and by bad ballots.
And let’s not forget to include the one million “provisional” ballots which will never get counted. Based on the experience of 2004, we know that, overwhelmingly, minority voters are the ones shunted to these baloney ballots.
And there’s one more group of votes that won’t be counted: absentee ballots challenged and discarded. Elections Assistance Agency data tell us a half million of these absentee votes will go down the drain.
—
Add it all up — all those Democratic-leaning votes rejected, barred and spoiled — and the Republican Party begins Election Day with a 4.5 million-vote thumb on the vote-tally scale.

Posted by: Anonymous | Nov 7 2006 19:45 utc | 38

Radiohead – Electioneering
I will stop, I will stop at nothing.
Say the right things when electioneering
I trust I can rely on your vote.
When I go forwards you go backwards
and somewhere we will meet.
When I go forwards you go backwards
and somewhere we will meet.
Ha ha ha
Riot shields, voodoo economics,
it’s just business, cattle prods and the I.M.F.
I trust I can rely on your vote.
When I go forwards you go backwards
and somewhere we will meet.
When I go forwards you go backwards
and somewhere we will meet.

Posted by: Rowan, not rocking the vote | Nov 7 2006 21:04 utc | 39

Okay, just spent the last two days working for the Jon Tester for Senate Campaign. The headquarters here in Missoula were a mad house, and quite disorganised. Inspite of that I believe he will win. For those interested I voted demo across the board as most (at least in Montana) are the lesser of the evils.
I’m tired and will elaborate more later…

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Nov 7 2006 21:08 utc | 40

According to statisticians working with the US Civil Rights Commission, the chance your vote will “spoil” this way is 900% higher for Black folk and 500% higher for Hispanics than for white voters. When we do the arithmetic, we find that well over half of all votes spoiled or “blank” are cast by voters of color. On balance, this spoilage game produces a million-vote edge for the GOP.
…
Add it all up — all those Democratic-leaning votes rejected, barred and spoiled — and the Republican Party begins Election Day with a 4.5 million-vote thumb on the vote-tally scale.
Translation:
The Dems beleive they can compete & prevail in an era of diminishment. Rather than fight it.
Not very inspiring.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Nov 7 2006 22:33 utc | 41

Good on you Uncle – you had me worried.

Posted by: beq | Nov 8 2006 0:10 utc | 42

I like to think that Moon of Alabama is at least one step up from Daily KOS.
cough, gee edwin what a vote of confidence in our beloved watering hole

Posted by: annie | Nov 8 2006 0:37 utc | 43

Annie – you’re welcome 🙂

Posted by: edwin | Nov 8 2006 0:41 utc | 44

lol @ annie
Now I can not wait for election rsults any more. I will have to sleep sometime.

Posted by: a swedish kind of death | Nov 8 2006 0:45 utc | 45

Call them rightist gains, call them losses of leftist gains. Whatever gets you through the night, right?
Either way, I’m happy that the Republicans no longer hold all the cards. Leftists can play the purist political abstention game. But that’d make us a bunch of libertarians, now, wouldn’t it?

Posted by: Lennonist | Nov 8 2006 14:14 utc | 46

Back to Main