Skip to main content

View Diary: Worried that Kloppenburg will bow out (38 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  trying to see the other side here... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I can see how someone could really lose patience with the comment that "Even though she came close, Kloppenburg was a sacrificial lamb." That doesn't just undercut the call for a recount, but it's like retroactive defeatism.

    In this I agree with wiseacre: it's in poor taste to start playing Taps.

    •  Retroactively claiming "Told ya so!" is bad form-- (0+ / 0-)

      without doubt; reassessing so as to appear "right" is one of the weakest canards I can imagine.  To the extent that and where that conceit is in play, there's no argument here.

      And while the opposite of that is a good thing, I'm suggesting that the opposite should be something other than channeling Norm Coleman.

      It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

      by Murphoney on Sat Apr 16, 2011 at 08:37:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  absolutely (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Full stop, because I don't intend to accuse anyone on DKos of "channeling Norm Coleman."

        I've now written two diaries plus a bunch of comments critiquing supposed evidence of fraud in Waukesha County in this or past elections. Obviously I'm partial, but I would say the criticisms I've gotten are very light on substance (which I welcome) and heavy on 'Why are you defending that liar?!' and, well, downhill from there. Sometimes it feels as if some folks are treating inquiries into how people actually voted in past elections as if this were just another political campaign, or a continuation of the campaign. I don't think that is the actual intention, but since what they say doesn't make much sense to me, what do I know?

        •  "Trust, but verify" -- the words make me shivver, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          but there is some sense in them and I wouldn't (and don't) want anyone to be able to walk away from cheating an election by using the database-equivalent of "Sorry, I didn't get your e-mail" *SHRUG* as an excuse.

          To your other point... in the Open Thread this morning, someone mentioned hunting wild boar on their property; someone else referenced the Simpsons, and it has me thinking of folks running along after their flying pig roast chanting, "It's still good! It's still good!"...It's just that it's appropriate to admit when it's gone, Homer.  

          Eventually, it's best to put your efforts toward making sure it doesn't happen that way again.

          It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

          by Murphoney on Sat Apr 16, 2011 at 09:46:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  indeed (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            An ounce of prevention, and all that.

            I don't think it's very easy, in Wisconsin, to steal an election by allowing a cyberdog to eat the homework. That's what the canvass is for; even if the canvass board butchers something, people can check their own municipality's numbers, and anyone can check the addition. Of course, that only works if people actually do it.

            So it would be nice if one outcome of this controversy is for people to understand how they can contribute to election verification, beyond insisting that some trustworthy authorities somewhere should investigate. (Obviously the GAB can obtain information the rest of us can't, but we're not completely at others' mercy.) Another good outcome would be to think about how the canvass could be subverted, and how to fix that.

            •  oh please (0+ / 0-)

              there is evidence of fraud in this election. what do you call immunity kathy's past : human errors"?
              a perpetual human error machine is evidence not just of incompetence but also of a willingness to overlook the integrity of elections. this neglect if you will, is evidence that the WI election process is not honest.

              as for the canvass you sure put your trust in how numberss are entered and tabulated. i however am aware of human error.

              show me the actual cat ballots
              dont show me an incompetent party hack that was given immunity

              •  (shrug) (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                What's your evidence that votes were stolen? If someone has something that makes sense, s/he really ought to post it. Otherwise, the most I can say is that fraud is always logically possible.

                It doesn't really matter what anyone thinks of Kathy Nickolaus (except that she now seems unlikely to keep her job). Lots of people run Wisconsin elections. What did she do, and how did it work? It's fine to say that you're "aware of human error," but can you be specific?

                If they recount Waukesha and the count is very close to the original, what will you say then? That you were wrong about the evidence? that the recount is wrong? that the ballots have been rigged?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site