I believe that we are slated for victory. But I have some concerns.

[readmoreoften]

I think that threads predicting impending doom and impending victory are two sides of the same unrealistic coin. Our political situation is not going to be defined by events, but by trends. I have been spent the semester teaching a rather vast survey course on the current conditions of global news media, and I'd like to share some of my hopes and concerns.

1) I believe that we are going to win the 2006 elections. Certainly, it is nearly impossible that conservatives could win by a fair election.
2) If the elections were rigged in 2000, 2002, and 2004, there would be no reason why those in power would not rig 2006. Since conservative interests own the media-- and I mean ALL the major media outlets in America--we can't say that "there are simply too many people voting dem for them to spin the issue so they cannot cheat." The MSM has no legal obligation to the truth. They can spin anything they want. They have chosen not to spin the fact that polls are leaning towards the Democrats.
3) If we "win control" in this election cycle there are only two possible scenarios as far as I can see (a) they were never able to rig elections, we lost fair and square in 2004, but now the political tide is changing and they can't stop it or (b) those who rigged the elections in 2004 have some nefarious interest in allowing fair elections for this round only. There could be a number of reasons why they would do this: "they" (most likely the PNAC) could be planning to colonize the Democratic party the way they did the Republicans (in fact William Kristol said that they were planning on doing just that); they could also be trying to discredit the idea of election theft so that they can steal elections without much ado in 2008 and beyond.

Here is my main point. If "Rove" (I have no idea if he's actually the one behind any of this) is perfectly capable of stealing elections then he is capable of stealing *any* and *every* election. If there is election fraud then Democracy died when the election was stolen in 2000 and democracy will only be restored when we smash the cheating mechanism not when the Democrats win. There is either election fraud or there is not. It cannot possibly be a case of "there is election fraud when we lose, but no election fraud when we win." (Please do not misconstrue this as me saying that Democrats are involved in election fraud--I am 100% NOT. I am saying that it is possible that those who do control the elections might have a reason for wanting us to win.)

So here's my request. When we win, let's be optimistic...but guarded. Let's monitor our elected Dems very closely to make sure they are not aligning themselves with the neo-cons. If they do, we must get rid of them in the 2008 election cycle.

I truly hope that this is the pendulum swinging, that voter fraud was only a myth or a potentiality (I have a very difficult time believing this), and that the nation is "righting" itself. But until I see some real results and some real change (for example, reinstatement of habeus corpus, reinstatement of the posse comitatus act, repeal or at least strict oversight of Operation Return to Sender, and the beginning of a pull out in Iraq-- with no new wars in the works) I am going to be extremely skeptical of the system and I invite you to be skeptical along with me.

If this is any hint, the MSM is still swinging further to the right. The political director for ABC NEWS (post Path to 9-11) appeared on Fox News and promised Bill O'Reilly that the station would go even further to the right. We must continue to fight. We must continue to be skeptical. We ABSOLUTELY need to both stay positive and keep our tinfoil hats firmly in place. I don't expect this battle between the neo-con agenda and the rest of America to be over until at least 2010-2012 (barring some catalyzing event :))

[kimmerspixelated]

1. A very good post.

[McKenzie]

2. "a RATHER vast survey course"?

either it is vast or it isn't. Something cant' be 'slightly vast' or "rather vast".

Good comments BTW.

[readmoreoften]

4. Gimme a break, I write all day for a living...I get tired.... :)

Yes, you are correct. A vast survey. I should say, particularly vast survey course. Survey courses have a wide scope by definition. This one covers an unwieldy amount of ground.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

3. I disagree... it's entirely possible for a focused campaign in OH and FLA of voter

supression and fraud to have occurred to swing a large number of electoral votes in two critical states in a close presidential election, while legitimate results could swing a wide variety of congressional races the Democratic Party's way. Even in Ohio the depth of sentiment is so hard against the Republicans that it's past the point where vote supression could win, say, the governor's race there for the Republicans.

While it remains to be seen what will happen on Tuesday, if a decisive victory happens for the Democrats it will in no way prove that there was no electoral malfeasance in 04, particularly in OH and FLA.

[readmoreoften]

5. I am by no means saying that a win PROVES that there was no voter fraud.

What I am saying is that one cannot say "there was voter fraud when we lost in 2004" and "there was no voter fraud when we won in 2006". I suppose the only argument for this would be that the number of folks voting Dem is so vast that there is no way they can manipulate the public into believing a republican win in 2006. I find this very hard to believe. They manipulated 71% of Americans into believing that Saddam Hussein was connected to 9-11. Of course they can manipulate people into believe that Republicans have managed to hold onto the House and Senate.

My main point is: just because the Democrats win, it doesn't mean that the neo-conservatives have lost control of the system that lead them to win in the first place. For those who don't believe in voter fraud, a pendulum swing to the middle sounds reasonable. But if you do believe that officials conspired to defraud voters in 2004, one must ask the question "what has changed and why?"

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

6. You "main point":

If "Rove" (I have no idea if he's actually the one behind any of this) is perfectly capable of stealing elections then he is capable of stealing *any* and *every* election.

I definitely disagree with, for the reasons I stated above. It's a different task to influence results in one or two key states versus across dozens of states. It's very possible to be able to do one and not the other. My opinion, different from yours.

[readmoreoften]

8. I can see that point. It would be easier to swing two states than

countless districts. That's an interesting point, in fact. What that tells me, if you are correct, is we need to be more wary than ever in 2008. It seems to me though, from the Princeton University demonstration that it might not be that difficult to infect a high number of machines, even at a distance.

But you make a good point.

[KittyWampus]

7. Yes you CAN say it, if that is what happens. We DID lose in 04 due to fraud

and that has been pretty well proven as best it can under the circumstances.

And when we win it in upcoming Midtersm it is because the polls and odds are simply against the GOP winning, the Media can NOT spin it.

Further, many more people know about Election Fraud via electronic machines.

The Democratic infrastructure has been built up and prepared to fight the Fraud when it's attempted.

There are people watching and taping the vote thisyear.

Just because you claim something, doesn't mean it is true.

I doubt you've done much factual reading about Election Fraud.

[readmoreoften]

9. How about being a notch less emotional and accusatory.

I haven't done much factual reading about election fraud? What do you think? I'm doing fictional reading on the subject? My post was not making any grandiose claims at all. And, yes, I realize that just because someone claims something it doesn't mean it's true. Thanks for pointing that out. In fact, I realize that anyone can blather on irrationally about any topic they want to. The thing is, I think that irrational blather is a big part of the problem, so I'm trying to approach this topic with a modicum of detachment.

I never said I didn't believe in voter fraud. I'm simply asking that we not jump to the conclusion that our impending win means that we are absolutely on the road to victory. Those who rig elections don't stop because the tide is against their team. In fact, logic would suggest the opposite. I don't believe for one minute that Rove has lost the will to rig elections and I'm not even convinced that the has lost the means.

But you're wrong about the media. It can pretty much spin anything it wants to spin, and what it wants to spin is largely whatever Murdoch wants it to spin, although their are most certainly other players. If Karl Rove (or whoever does the vote rigging) is willing and able to sufficiently rig the machines to present a surprise Republican victory, ABC/FOX/CNN and MSNBC (in particular) will find a way to spin it in the same way that they have spun most topics for the past 6 years. My biggest concern is that the neo-conservative movement is jumping ship. I don't want them jumping onto us.