Why is law enforcement preparing for an Obama Lose?

[redirish28]

My wife has a friend who sent her links to two stories:


One is from a link of Alex Jones Infowar thing but when the Guardian/ UK picks it up it does make me wonder.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/johnmccain/3248961/Police-fear-riots-if-Barack-Obama-loses-US-election.html>Police fear riots if Barack Obama loses US election


NOW with Obama having such a lead as he does and McCain supporters showing the hate and threats they are capable of WHY are they preparing for an Obama supporters going
"nuts"?
Should we worry about election being stolen? AND why aren't they "Preparing" for a McCain lose knowing how extreme some of his supporters have been shown to be?

[Redbear]

1. Because an Obama loss now would end all discussion

of whether we remain a democracy.

[zanne]

2. We should always worry about an election being stolen....

But this time, I think it's the right-wing yahoos who'll be out in the streets if there's any "rioting".

The McCain campaign is already trying to spread outrage over Acorn and how, if he loses in states with a tight race, it will be because of "voter fraud".

[tritsofme]

3. Because they are law enforcement, and planning such as this is prudent.

Does that answer your question?

[mmonk]

5. Nope

Why this time?

[tritsofme]

19. Just because some guy at The Telegraph (RW rag)

decided to write an article does not mean that such plans are A: True, or B: anything new or unique to this year.

I happen to think that police having contingency plans is a good thing.

[UnrepentantUnitarian]

4. I'm inclined to agree...

if McCain is awarded a narrow win--not really a win, but a suspicious manipulation of the votes--it could very well send a wave of anger all across the country. For millions of people, this is "the moment" that has brought them out to change business as usual, and if "the system" shoots them down this time it won't be a pretty sight, IMHO.

[UnrepentantUnitarian]

8. Afterthought...

The Declaration of Independence suggests the need for this. Although it cautions a need for prudence--not to rise up and revolt over "light and transient causes"--it clearly insists that "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

How that is to be accomplished is arguable, and I certainly would not recommend violence, but the need for some form of an emphatic statement after such a "long train of abuses" does seems clear enough and even highly "American," seems to me.

[treestar]

6. What police?

They could be racists, figuring the riots after the Rodney King verdict must prove that blacks always riot when they don't get their way.

If the police department in question had brains, they'd prepare just as hard for a McLoser loss.

[undeterred]

7. The other plausible scenario is rioting in celebration

of an Obama win. This is not as implausible as one might think. I lived on the South Side of Chicago during all 6 years that the Chicago Bulls won the championship with Michael Jordan. The first year that they won, which I believe was 1991- there were people in the streets celebrating but some of them went overboard and stores were set on fire, windows were smashed, there was looting, and people were arrested. It was inexplicable- except that there were a lot of very drunk and happy people all over Chicago.

The following years, when they knew they would win, there were always PSAs from Phil Jackson or Michael Jordan about celebrating safely and responsibly. I think that they were really not expecting the huge reaction to the first one.

[That Guy 888]

9. I'm hoping it's just prudent precaution.

The Feds and certain state and local law enforcement groups were prepared for Y2K millennial crazies committing terrorist acts to try to jump-start the apocalypse. Luckily nothing like that happened, but I could see why they might think that it would have.

As for this incident, a third dubious republican victory with racist overtones could easily cause problems. Plus as Rachel Maddow says a week is a lifetime in politics.


I'm hoping that's all it is.

[get the red out]

10. Maybe it is the insanity of Rush listeners they prepare for.

I am sure they don't want to say they are preparing for a bunch of angry theocrats and racists. But it is quite possible that they are. Rush and co. have a lot of them duped into believing the polls are lying and that the Bradley effect will win the election for McCain so that THEY will be the ones claiming the election was stolen.

[LWolf]

11. I don't know what an "Obama lose" is.

Is it a wish, or did you mean an Obama LOSS?

The only reason to prepare for an Obama loss is if you know the fix is in, and the votes won't be counted, or counted accurately.

Only those "counting" on election fraud would prepare for an Obama loss at this point.

[Old Codger]

12. no telling

I would figure they are going with the "Better safe than sorry" ....

[Marrah_G]

13. They would be stupid NOT to prepare

Obama is way ahead.

He is a historic candidate.

Any loss would most likely be due to election fraud.

Police know that if this election is stolen again the people will go to the streets.

[okieinpain]

14. damn good question, and why are they sending the police out

to heavy black areas only.

[natrat]

15. wake up sunshine if the polls tighten anymore it's as good as stolen

[onenote]

16. Maybe they're preparing because some people (including a few DUers)

are suggesting that people take to the streets if Obama loses.

[natrat]

17. even if the thugs came out and said "yes we stole it"

taking to the streets would do nothing

[gollygee]

18. They assume black people will riot given any cause at all

It's more likely racism than anything else. They anticipate riots along the lines of when the police officers who beat up Rodney King got off.