"Of the three recall elections of governors in U.S. history, only Walker has survived." I wasn't aware that "rarely" equated to something which occurred in 66% of the cases. Read more: Wisconsin's Walker survives recall by wide margin | Fox News
For this election. It just depends on where parties want to invest. I'd say it is a lot closer elsewhere and elections where dems outspend repubs probably balance Wisconsin.
I'm not sure -- at any point in our history -- that anything has been different. Let me rephrase. There was a time when Congress told us who the nominee for President was going to be. Then that gave way to nominating conventions. Then that gave way to primaries, but even those primaries weren't always legitimate and the Party could select who they wanted at will. And now, we get to choose our nominee but through the fog and mist of money and "special interest". Other than a handful of elections (George Washington? Andrew Jackson?, Jimmy Carter?) I don't know if the American electorate ever got a fair shake in terms of their sheer impact.
It was posted in a thread in the last two days. At any rate, I'm glad to be corrected. No one here thinks Democrats systematically commit election fraud. I'll just bookmark this.
Was it Republicans who were just alleging that Florida's "proof of citizenship" laws were excluding Hispanic and African-Americans from the polls?
Is it not true that Barrett did not even get into the race until around April, Walker was already running months before? Only seems logical that the republicans out spent them. Even democrats know that you don't spend money for a candidate to be named later. Much to do about nothing IMHO!
Not what was said. Not at all. You strongly implied that any Republican loss would be foolishly explained away with the excuse of voter fraud. Hence, one would assume there was a significant trend of such excuse-making. No such trend has been illustrated. Does that mean voter fraud doesn't happen or that means to control it are unnecessary? Obviously not.
Splitting hairs. I mentioned the prevalent excuse of voter fraud (see the last presidential election, see the elections resulting in democratic control of the house or senate). You acted like you'd never heard of such a claim.
Please do. I'd like to bring it back up next time you take the approach of only the most literal interpretations of one's words can be considered and all inferences and implications are evil witchcraft.
1. No I didn't. 2. No one blamed McCain's loss on voter fraud. Everyone gave Obama the election long before anyone voted. McCain was an awful candidate from a wildly unpopular and unmotivated party at the time and Obama was extraordinarily popular.
1. You made at least 3 posts in which you requested examples/evidence of those claims 2. No one? Try google.
1. Evidence of people claiming voter fraud specifically determined an election. As in, without fraud the loser would have been the winner. 2. Anyone on this site? Anyone worth listening to or complaining about? Even a significant number of people?
1. If that is what you are asking for, we are not in disagreement. I was stating that it is invoked against Dems in all recent major elections. Not that it actually changed an outcome. 2. Rush Limbaugh types and their minions. If you find him to be a schmuck, again we have no quarrel.
I really don't know if there are a lot of people that would say Obama win by such a large margin simply due to voter fraud. That said, if there was voter fraud, that still pisses me off. I'm the guy that will yell death threats at the ref because of a bad call while I'm down by an impossible margin with ten seconds remaining.
I'm not condoning voter fraud. But we are talking about accepting Type I or Type II errors. Which is worse, an illegal vote, or a denied/suppressed vote?
An illegal vote is wrong every time, without question. Hanging chads and such can be subjectively deciphered and may have some incorrect determinations. So, I would say the one that is wrong from the get-go is definitely worse.
Then we should cease pulling over anyone suspected of drunk driving What's worse, that one drunk driver be allowed to continue barreling down the highway, or that 10 innocent drivers get inconvenienced? I fail to see what is so outlandish about asking someone to prove that they are legally eligible to vote, before allowing them to do so.
