Election Night Jitters

Okay, up front, here’s the predictions: a close Kerry win, riding a wave of vote fraud in which the only people who vote more often than house pets in close precincts are dead people – and both the dogs and the dead folks break heavily Dem. Bush doesn’t file 50 lawsuits, but accepts being robbed graciously, and in the words of a bunch of left wing buttmunchers, moves on. Election to be followed by 6 months of crowing about how America is moving in a new direction, followed by two years of quietness on the AQ front, along with the rapid withdrawal of US troops from the middle east. Yurp will still hate us, the Middle East will now truly believe what Osama suspected, that we are indeed complete pussies. New York, Baltimore, LA or Dallas to be nuked by 2010.
But that’s no reason to be unhappy because, as many have pointed out, the world will keep going on no matter who wins the election. The only difference will be, that a lot of us shitheads wont be in it. But hey, that doesn’t matter. What matters is that all the really right thinking people HATE BUSH!
But on the bright side… here’s a shoutout to the Bloggfather. He summarizes “The Choice quite acutely.

Advertisements

4 comments

  1. Mark S.

    “riding a wave of vote fraud”? Perhaps. How sad, though, to be so certain that only skulduggery could be responsible for one’s preferred candidate’s plight.
    How sad to sound so like a…well, like a Democrat. And ex ante, no less.

  2. James

    Mark, Al didn’t say he was certain, he just predicted that Kerry would win in that way. Given the evidence that has already come out regarding Democrat tampering, along with the experience in 2000 where they attempted precisely the same thing and very nearly got away with it, it’s hardly an implausible prediction!

  3. Al Maviva

    Mark, that ain’t the point.
    Yes, I blame Bush for not having better exploited his advantages and for having come out of the gate very poorly in the debates; it should not be a close race.
    However, in a close race, it only takes a tiny fraction of the vote to be cast fraudulently to sway things, and the Dems have efforts underway to systematically exploit weaknesses in the system in several swing states. Whether it’s 120% turnout that includes dogs and dead people (St. Louis, Chicago, NY, Boston); nursing home absentee ballot fraud (Florida); crack for votes (Ohio); forging ballots on Indian reservations (South Dakota); or millions of dollars in Soros “street money” going to ghetto vote brokers (Pennsylvania) – there is enough going on to turn the tables in favor of Kerry, without having to change anybody’s mind. Wanna know why the Dems did an about-face on touchscreen voting after 2000? Because it’s harder to fool the computer than a judge. You can argue about what was intended by a hanging chad, an “overvote” with multiple punch or pencil marks; or by stray pencil marks – but you can’t argue with a skipped touch screen. So it’s much harder to game the system. While Dems 4 years ago were claiming the absence of touchscreen voting was discriminatory, they are now claiming that providing it is discriminatory – at least in instances where it would benefit them.
    Am I being defeatist? Yes, I suppose in a way. I’m writing off the party of one half of the country as debased and crooked. But I don’t think it’s wrong to take this fact – the massive corruption of the Dems’ urban voting machines in one-party cities – and base predictions on it. Want my real rationale?
    In the absence of cheating, it should be a close win for Bush. Taking into account cheating, it’s a not-particularly close win for Kerry, since 30 or 40 electoral votes will get tipped into his basket – an extra percent or half percent in close states should do it. So really, the only question for me is whether or not the Dems will cheat very effectively and on a pretty large scale. And you know now how I answered that one.

  4. James

    Interestingly, Andrew Tanenbaum’s electoral-vote.com has suddenly swung (in the last hour!) from a significant Kerry lead in the Electoral College (290-odd) to a tie (262-261). A last-minute swing just beginning to be caught by the last polls, or just a polling artifact – and if the former, why: the OBL tape? Undecideds breaking for the known quantity?