Kos and the Prosser “conspiracy”
Kos thinks the “found” 7,500 Prosser votes represent fraud, naturally. And although professor William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection points out some pretty hefty flaws in that position and writes, “The Kos kids are going to have to do better,” I respectfully disagree.
The point of the Kos argument is not to convince us, or even to mount an attack that holds up under scrutiny. It’s to create a potent meme that fits into other memes of the past such as that of the great stolen election of 2000. I’d wager it’ll do quite nicely in that regard, although fewer people are paying attention to this one.
Well, Nate Silver of the NY Times assures us, almost certainly correctly, that human error was the cause. So, if the Times is telling us that there was no fraud, I doubt that the lefties will continue to harp on the issue very long.
Don’t forget Palin and Trig. The story that Trig was Bristol’s was made up in a thread on Democratic Underground. The inventors were quite aware it wasn’t true, their aim was election victory by all means.
Nah, real fraud is when you ‘find’ just enough votes to win. The Democrats ought to know, that’s been their favorite ploy to steal elections. A 7500 vote difference would be a real clumsy and stupid way of trying to commit fraud since it’s too large a number to avoid heavy scrutiny.
Hong: if you follow Jacobson’s link to the Kos piece (I didn’t want to link to Kos directly) you will find Kos has a theory about that. They “found” enough votes to put it out of automatic recount territory. Now a recount would have to be paid for by the Democrats.
You’d think the left would be pleased, in a teeth-grinding sense. If it’s fraud, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
After all, Prosser votes were held until it was too late to find any more in various car trunks. Stroke of genius.
Clearly, it wasn’t fraud.
If we hear this from a lefty, the proper response would be a pitying grin and saying, “You know better and I know you know better. You’re a liar.”
See how that flies.
Except that the county clerk for Waukesha is a Democrat. Whoops. Is she so clueless that the Republicans could pull that off under her nose?
The point of the Kos argument is not to convince us, or even to mount an attack that holds up under scrutiny. It’s to create a potent meme that fits into other memes of the past such as that of the great stolen election of 2000.
Exactly. Its purpose is to buck up the spirits of the faithful, and secondarily to muddy the waters enough to take in some cognitively challenged independents.
neo says, “The point of the Kos argument is not to convince us, or even to mount an attack that holds up under scrutiny. It’s to create a potent meme that fits into other memes of the past such as that of the great stolen election of 2000. I’d wager it’ll do quite nicely in that regard, although fewer people are paying attention to this one.”
Yes, the selected not elected mantra. The hanging, dented, pregnant chad argument will rope a dope at least 5% every time. And in our fractured society 5% is all it takes.
Richard Aubrey says, “If it’s fraud, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.”
Good one. 🙂 Onward to Chicago! Let the legions of dead conservatives arise.
The 2000 election mess was truly the climax of our change, mine and my wife’s. We turned fifty, a few days after the election. We’d been Democrats or worse since we were students. We believed that the Democrats, even if a lot of their programs did not work, were the good guys. I had been a Dem precinct chairman, and therefore the election judge in that precinct. We knew the workings of Votomatic machines, intimately.
Day after day we listened to NPR, first with rising skepticism, and then with mounting horror, as the Democrats attempted to steal an election, and the media helped them do it, willingly, without reservation. They were telling us that election officials were turning away Black voters. We soon learned that these were Democrat precincts, with, therefore, Democrat election officials. Why would they, of all people, be turning away Black voters?
They told us the Black people had been intimidated to keep them from voting. How would a recount learn the “voter intent” of voters who had not cast ballots?
Finally, the dimpled chads, although we did not know for another year or so how such things were manufactured. We just knew that the weight of a dessicated hand of a wizened old lady is more than enough to push the stylus through the punch card.
Democrats still say that the Supreme Court “awarded the election to Bush,” not that the Court simply said that there could be no more recounts in only four counties, but that they would have to be done state-wide or not at all. Since the entire plan was to keep recounting until enough ballots had somehow appeared to push Gore over the top, at that point, the Democrats folded, but not without throwing out wild accusations of stolen elections, still believed by the sort of people who not only move their lips when they read, but also when they watch television.
Sorry, it just gets me going, all over again.
Michael Adams,
I read your comment with joy. Thanks.
Michael Adams, the Democratic Party antics in Florida in 2000 also changed political views. One thing that stick in my mind was the Democrats wanting to suddenly change the ways votes were counted- in counties where Democrats had set the rules. It resembled what happened later in Massachusetts regarding US Senate vacancies: change your policy on an ad hoc basis to what you see would best advantage you at a given time.
However, in my case it turned me from a third party voter into one who decided that I should vote for the party most likely to defeat the Democrats, which in nearly all cases would be the Republican Party.
Gringo says, “However, in my case it turned me from a third party voter into one who decided that I should vote for the party most likely to defeat the Democrats, which in nearly all cases would be the Republican Party.”
That is what I have typically done since 1972; otherwise, I vote libertarian at the state and local level when I know my vote will not make a difference.
I think this vote counting “error” actually was purposeful as well. You see, as soon as the unions/left thought they had won, they didn’t feel the need to go out and manufacture any additional votes like they did in Minnesota, and pretty much every other election democrats vote in. They dropped their guard, and then the “error” was found.
Gringo, you ever get up to Austin? Neo has my e-mail. Beer? coffee?
Let me cast a third vote in favor of Michael adams comment. Pure gold!
Watching all the 2000 post election machinations by the democrats did not change me (I was already a conservo-libertarian), but it did show me how devious and dishonest the dems could be.
+1 @ Michael Adams
Michael Adams has really hit the nail on the head for me, as well. I have been a very long-time member of a 3rd party, and have not voted for a D or an R since we (thankfully!) rid ourselves of Jimmy Carter. I didn’t like Bush and still think that he squandered lots of money and utterly screwed up the Middle East, but at least he was not the painfully obvious con artist that the Goran was.
The shenanigans that the Dems pulled after the 2000 election were stunning and obvious. I hated Richard Nixon, but at least he had the decency to concede in 1960 and not put the country through hell. The Goran and his Dem supporters had no such decency. I was utterly appalled. I decided that the Democrat Party was simply a party devoted to win-at-all-costs, and that a rather large fraction of the party, perhaps a third, was certifiably insane. It is the only organization I’m aware of that is very proud to support murder [abortion], theft [ruinous taxation], and violence against others [unions]. I vowed never to vote for a Dem again.
Since 2000, the Dems have just gotten worse. I can think of no creature quite as vile as the Wicked Witch of the West [Pelosi] and her comrades.
Show of hands, how many get the ‘Henry Bowman’ reference? Of course, my friend who lent me the Book Which Must Not Be Named, says no one ought even to admit to having read it.
Michael, I have no idea what you are talking about.
BTW, did you know that John Ross is a Dem?
No. Although, why would he be?
I had to
GoogleBing it. Heh.Who hasn’t read Unintended Consequences?