All of these MSM stories about "tightening polls" .........

[socialist_n_TN]

means that the Republcans are getting ready to steal the election. The totally owned corporate media are setting us up. The question then becomes, what will we do about it?

[Flashmann]

1. Republicans are getting ready to steal the election.

That isn't accurate....They've been planning to steal it AGAIN,all along.....

[socialist_n_TN]

2. True. But the "tightening race" meme is the necessary precursor

That still leaves the question unanswered.

[brush]

3. Worrying

I thought about that too. There's a posting today about how Rove-backed polls are skewing results rightward.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021530460
It's very concerning. Let's see what happens after the VP debate is factored into the polls but it does seem that the corporate media and the pollsters are conspiring to make the race close so that it won't seem unbelievable if Romney edges us out in a close win. I say let's keep working so that they can't pull another OHIO '04. Remember, we did it in '08. I'm sure they tried to steal '08 but the margin of victory was too great. That's what we have to do this time also. It's sad that this is what it's come to in our country. Elections aren't fair anymore. We have to work twice as hard to fight the cheaters.

[socialist_n_TN]

5. Personally, I don't think they WANTED to win in '08........

They wanted to get a Democrat into office so they could blame the crisis of capitalism on the Dems. And the blame wasn't totally wrong. Dems WERE partially responsible, but Republicans more so. They were counting on the short attention span of the American electorate. To our credit, that part didn't really work out. Most people still blame Bush for the recession. Although, that's actually a victory for the system itself. When you blame one man of either party for a crisis of the system itself, then that's a victory FOR that system. So I guess I should say that it only PARTIALLY worked out.

I think what REALLY surprised and scared them was the fact that a half black man with an Islamic name was able to actually WIN the Presidency. THAT right there showed them that they, and the system itself, could possibly be in deep shit, ergo the heavy obstructionism. That's also why so many on our side were and are disappointed in Obama and the Dems performance while they had a modicum of control. The 2008 election WAS a mandate and it was (mostly) squandered. It was squandered, not because they couldn't get much accomplished due to the obstructionism, but because they had the chance to change the 30+ year old meme about government and didn't do it.

Anyway, my point is that I really don't think they WANTED to win the Presidential election in 2008. I DO think they were counting on and were overconfident about winning the Senate though and that overconfidence caused them to not try to steal the Senate races. That is NOT a mistake they'll make this time.

But my REAL curiousity involves how centrist activitists like Democratic Party members will react WHEN the election is obviously stolen. So far in past elections the Party and it's members have whined and not got in the streets about it and that's because they still believe in the system, both electoral and capitalism. Will an obvious case of electoral fraud lead to a radicalization of these centrists? Or will they whine again and not do anything by direct action?

Edited to add: Welcome to DU. I'm a communist of the Trotskyist tendency BTW, just so you'll know where I'm coming from in all of my analyses.

[Teamster Jeff]

9. In the case of a stolen election

As you suggest centrist dems would whine a little then quickly fall in line with the Repugs corporatist agenda. Occupy and Unions are the only groups that I see "getting in the streets". The Unions would still need some internal prodding though.

[brush]

11. Mandate?

Last edited Sun Oct 14, 2012, 11:37 PM - Edit history (1)

I appreciate your post. I do have one disagreement. Obama didn't have what I would call a mandate. His victory was no landslide. You can't really change any 30+ year meme in the few weeks the dems had a 60 vote majority in the Senate in '09 (the time after Al Franken was finally sworn in and when Ted Kennedy died). They never had a 67 vote filibuster-proof majority and the 60 vote majority included some blue dog dems (dinos) and the Benedit Arnold Joe Liberman, so there wasn't much chance to change much before the obstructionists marshaled their forces. But despite the obstructionism the President got healthcare passed, the stimulus passed, saved the auto industry and on and on and on, so I don't buy you negativity and disappointment considering what the President was up against.

[socialist_n_TN]

12. No the Dems didn't have a mandate in the traditional sense......

of a working majority for legislative changes (as I pointed out in my post), ESPECIALLY with the obstructionist mindset of the opposition and the Blue Dogs. But Obama DID have a mandate in that people were willing to LISTEN to the idea of some sort of change in that meme of government is universally bad and can't be an agent for beneficial change. I even had a semi racist distant cousin in the heart of Mississippi that wound up voting for him because Bush to his mind had screwed things up so bad economically. So the bully pulpit was available to him. But he chose not to use that for whatever reason.

Also, compared to the past few Presidential election cycles, Obama had a DEFINITE majority in the vote that he could have claimed as a mandate. Hell, Bush claimed a mandate when he supposedly beat Kerry by a couple of percentage points. I'm not sure about Bush the Elder, but basing it only on memory, Obama won a bigger percentage of the popular vote than anyone since Reagan. That was the type of mandate that I was referring to.

[brush]

13. People mandate

We're not a one-man one-vote democracy. This country is a republic with representatives representing constituencies of voters. There's really no such thing as a "mandate of the people"

[socialist_n_TN]

17. Sure there is. Just because it doesn't directly legislate.........

doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's called influencing the representatives.

[FrenchieCat]

14. Whatever mandate Obama had initially was reduced greatly when

the "people" didn't listen but for a hot minute prior to deciding that they weren't getting what they demanded,
like right away! Our side, instead, started to loudly complain that the stimulus wasn't large enough (never mind that we didn't get the 60 votes till a few months later), then they argued that the health care offerings were not enough.....

Meanwhile, the Corporate media pushed the corporate manufactured Tea Party on us mercilessly without pity starting in April of 2009, and announced to us that those tea partier in the streets were indeed the "people".....
and that defeating health care was the only mandate that counted. We, to fight back, ridiculed the tea parties,
kept talking about how much we opposed and hated the health care proposal, and how disappointed we were in Obama.....

And then came the elections of 2010, where too many of our folks simply were "know-it-all-no-shows" who didn't come out to vote either in order to "teach" Obama a lesson, while some of the more moderatesr bought into the tea party hype the media sold, or because they just didn't care enough....and so we lost the House, and shrank our senate presence....in a year when redistricting based on the census was on the ballot.

So it is ironic in a way that you blame Obama for what we didn't get,
while I blame those who simply sat back pointing fingers, complaining loudly,
not accepting the facts that Blue Dogs don't agree with us, and who chose to trash Obama at every opportunity,
rather than trashing the opponents of all that Obama was trying to do.

What I have learned from all of this is how good our side is about attacking our side,
while willingly allowing the other side to gain the upper hand via collusion with our Corporate media.

[socialist_n_TN]

16. The only thing I "blame" Obama for under the circumstances........

was not calling out the opposition more forcefully and at least attempting to dispel the meme that government is worthless. Under the circumstances that might have been the only way to truly break the opposition, by getting the majority of the populace behind activist government FOR THE PEOPLE.

But this is merely an aside to the central question that I was trying to get at. What do centrist Dems do if there is proven electoral fraud on the part of the Republicans that costs Obama the election? Do they wail on the internet and then give it up or do they actively fight the takeover of the country?

[AverageJoe90]

18. I'm not quite buying it.

You would not believe just how truly upset the Repubs were when Obama won.
Truth is, they WANTED to win, but couldn't because of the turnout machine set up by the Democratic Party. And it's working even better this year.

They are definitely going to have to go into overdrive and if they try to steal it this year, their game will have been blown wide open. and it'll be the end of the party.

[AverageJoe90]

19. I think they probably did, too.

But the truth is, there are still plenty of Republicans so disillusioned with their party that they're either not voting, going for Johnson or some other third-party guy, or, in some cases, even switching sides. You would not believe just how many stories I've heard just within this past year.

[Tippy]

4. I agree....

As soon as they began changing the election laws, and democrats failed to jump on it...Then we learn of the Bain/Romney voting machines....I am praying for a miracle

[socialist_n_TN]

6. This........

"...and the democrats failed to jump on it..."

This is the crux of what I want to know. Since they've gotten away with stealing elections, including BIG elections, in the past and haven't been called on it BY THE OFFICIAL OPPOSITION PARTY, then they will become bolder and bolder about it. That's a classic authoritarian mindset right there. When the unofficial Dem response to election theft is GOTV and the official response is to pretend it doesn't happen, that's the way to guarantee that the KEEPS happening.

What we really have to do to stop this is not only to call them on it, but to make SURE their bosses behind the scenes know that if they obviously steal an election, the economy is going to get disrupted. IOW, the owners must KNOW that their profits WILL suffer if they continue with their shennanigans regarding electoral fraud. That means demonstrations and strikes and even economic sabotage. I'd start stocking up on non-perishable foodstuffs and keep a cash stash handy.

BTW, I'll be happy to be wrong about all this. I just don't think I am.

[tiredtoo]

7. It Behooves the MSM to have "tightening polls"

They are pulling tons of money in from the political ads. Personally I follow intrade and intrade also shows a decrease in Obama's chances since the debate. We all must increase our efforts to assure Obama's re-election. We can phone bank, knock on doors, donate $, donate time, be a voters rights advocate at voting locations, give rides to those who need them to vote. All these options will help us in our goal.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

15. I'm watching them as well and

reading the polling analysis carefully.

[ModLibCentrist]

8. I agree

theres only one thing I'm watching right now and thats Intrade.

especially the state by state numbers there. people within those states have their ear on the ground and can sense momentum and trends and that leads to them putting money behind one guy. Friday actually ended up being not a good day at all for the President as his per state numbers made very noticable declines in some key states notably Ohio and Iowa.

[FrenchieCat]

10. What we will do is to blame Obama.....

Cause that's our answer to everything.

Personally, I'll be blaming all of the smart asses who think they would do better
at the presidency than the President, and say so over and over again.