[UPDATE] This Election is Not Over -- With Exciting New Math Calculations!

Since 11/2, there have been various stages of dealing with what happened.  Anger, denial, claims of fraud, etc., etc.  Blaming Kerry for "quitting."  More recently, talk has shifted to procedural issues like how to fix the voting system (didn't we DO this four years ago?  Apparently not.)

What has become clear to me, reading between the lines and ignoring a lot of shit (sorry) is that THIS ELECTION IS NOT OVER.  Floating around in various threads is the notion that several states are still counting votes (Ohio and New Mexico principally, but also Iowa and Nevada).

I made a comment here this morning about the 155,000 provisional ballots in Ohio, and the critical importance of the requested recount, so as to get to the 93,000 undervotes.

Folks, it's not over.  I don't think the Kerry folks think it's over either.  If I'm right, and if it comes out the way I think it might, it will be the greatest stealth campaign in the history of the world, quite frankly.

Let's pull it together.  Right now, it's 286-252 in favor of Bush.  Ohio has not even begun to count the provisional ballots.  There are 155,000 or so.  Ohio has a history of provisional ballots, based on state law.  In 2000, 90% of the ballots counted, and of those I understand that 90% were for Gore.  Applying that standard to the 155,000 would give Kerry 125,550 additional votes, and Bush 13,950.  That would narrow the margin from 132,000 (the 136,000 figure includes the now-infamous Gahanna 4,000 vote error in Franklin County) down to about 24,600.  Originally, this was why Kerry conceded; he just couldn't get it done on the provisional ballots alone.

Ahh, but now there's a new development.  A recount (or an "audit," as one diary called it).  Fine.  Whatever, call it what you want.  But Kerry couldn't ask for it, because he'd be called a sore loser, Al Gore with a Brahmin accent.  The lawyers are there, they're sniffing around, they're ready to deal with the shenanigans.  But (here's the great part) it's not Kerry's recount.  The media is treating the Cobb/Badnarik recount request as a joke, but it's not.  If the recount is held, the first thing elections officials have to do is dust off the 93,000 undervotes on punch cards (dear God, not again).  And yes, Ohio has a uniform state standard:  0 or 1 corners attached, vote counts.  2 or 3, no dice.  So the recount won't be shut down -- and Blackwell can't change the rules.  God, I love Bush v. Gore (never thought I'd write those words).

Again, look at the history.  Traditionally, 90% count, and the split is about 4-1 for Democrats -- undervotes are almost exclusively from poor and/or minority areas.  Take 93,000, 90% is 83,700.  80% of that is 66,960 for Kerry, with 16,740 for Bush.  That 24,600 vote Bush lead after the provisionals now goes to  . . . . fanfare, please . . . . ladies and gentlemen, I give you the 44th President of the United States, John Kerry, by a 25,660 vote margin in Ohio.

Now the margins could change, most likely on the undervotes.  Let's say Kerry only gets 70%, rather than 80, of the undervotes.  He still wins, this time by about 9,000 votes.

Obviously, it would help if we could turn around New Mexico, Iowa and/or Nevada as well, to create a cushion for legal challenges and to create more legitimacy to this process.

OHIO HAS NOT EVEN BEGUN THIS PROCESS OF COUNTING PROVISIONAL BALLOTS, OR THE RECOUNT THAT HAS BEEN REQUESTED BY COBB AND BADNARIK.

Since 11/2, Blackwell has been trying to make rule changes, like the one where he tried to say that if you left your birthday off the provisional ballot, it didn't count.  Sorry, Ken, there's a prior rule about that, and it says that the absence of the birthday is not enough to disqualify a provisional ballot.  Privately, I suspect they are absolutely freaking out, because Bush v. Gore limits their ability to pull post-election shenanigans like changing the rules.

I think that one of the reasons that Bush has been accepting a lot of Cabinet resignations now, rather than in January, is to create an inevitability in the minds of the public and the media that this is a done deal.  No one in the media is dealing with the analysis I set forth herein, which is not my own analysis, but simply a mathematical exercise gleaned from what little public information is out there.  The media went home on 11/3, and other than a few smirking
"conspiracy" stories since, has not really addressed the final counting of votes in Ohio or elsewhere.  Bush's lead in New Mexico has been cut from 14,000 to less than 6,000, and they're still counting.

Repeat after me:  it ain't over til they count the votes.  Which means it ain't over.  Will Kerry win?  No idea.  Can he win?  Yes.

Update [2004-11-14 17:33:59 by jsmdlawyer]: A couple of good questions have been raised. I will try to answer. My understanding is that the 93,000 figure is undervotes, not spoiled ballots, which includes overvotes. If someone has information to the contrary, please let me know. I also understand that Ohio law is very unfavorable to overvotes.

Second, my math doesn't include the usual "errors" and "mistakes" that get made, almost invariably in favor of the Republican. Who'da thunk it? Or "machine errors" in Cuyahoga and Franklin Counties (I believe there are potentially a lot of votes in Franklin, because the turnout numbers seem very off in several precincts in Columbus, including where I worked on Election Day, and I've heard similar questions raised in Cleveland as well). So I don't think that my analysis is anything approaching a best case scenario, but a reasonable middle ground.

Bottom line: is this a 100-1 shot? NO WAY. Is it a slam dunk for our guy? Similarly, absolutely not. If I had to lay odds right now, I'd say it's 50-50. If that sounds chickenshit, sorry; but I bet it's better odds than you thought when you woke up today. ;-)

Update [2004-11-14 23:15:43 by jsmdlawyer]: OK, based on some comments (not the love notes, but some other ones), another math exercise is in order.

I assumed 90% of the provisionals and 90% of the undervotes would count. A number of posts (not the trolls, just the pessimists -- nothing wrong with that, just not who I am) said I was too optimistic. OK, fair enough -- let's try a different math problem.

Let's say only 70% of the provisionals count -- a bit higher than the 2/3 being reported in Cleveland -- but let's go with it. 70% of 155,000 is 108,500. Let's assume 90% are for Kerry (there's no reason to question that right now -- they are what they are, after all). That would mean 97,650 votes for Kerry and 10,850 votes for Bush, a lead for Kerry of 86,800. Subtracting that from Bush's current lead of 132,000 yields a Bush lead of 45,200.

Now we move on to the undervotes. If 90% is too high for the number to be counted (unlike provos, there is a standard and a history to go with it), let's use 80% instead, to be conservative (no pun intended). 80% of 93,000 is 74,400. Use the same percentage (80%) for Kerry (again, no reason to change here -- the ballots are what they are). 59,520 votes for Kerry, 14,880 for Bush, a net of 44,640. So now the lead for Bush is 560 votes -- gee, isn't that really close to 537? And remember, we haven't even touched the other aspects of a recount (some overvotes may count, not as many as we'd like, and who knows what may be under those voting machine rocks when they get turned over in the recount). WE ARE STILL IN THE GAME.

If you think I'm wrong, please tell me. Don't shout at me, don't insult me; tell me, show me. I'm an optimist, I can't help it, it's who I am. You pessimists out there, poke holes in my balloon. A few have tried, and I've tried to respond. It's your move. Have at it. I'm ready for ya.

Update [2004-11-15 10:50:28 by jsmdlawyer]: Last update. In comments, ineedalife, after calling me a "rube," then said my calculations were "naive." So just for him, here's a worst-case scenario.

Only 70% of the provisionals get counted. That's 108,500 votes. Kerry gets 85% rather than 90%. That's 92,225 for Kerry and 16,275 for Bush. Lead for Bush is now 56,050.

On the undervotes, only 70% get counted, and they break for Kerry 70-30 rather than 80-20. Of the 93,000 undervotes, that's 45,570 for Kerry and 19,530 for Bush, knocking the lead down by another 26,040 votes.

The lead is now 30,010 votes, with the recount still to go. Overvotes. Machine errors. Shenanigii (love that word). Absentees (at least some, from what I can tell). The margin will narrow further, maybe completely.

OK, so Bush wins by 5,000 votes. Or 10,000. Does that make you feel worse than you do now, or better? And remember, this is clearly the WORST CASE; it could easily get a lot better. Take that mandate and shove up Dick Cheney's ass. Fuck mandate, it's more like 2000 Redux. I feel better. Don't you?

•  Thanks

  People are jaded by rampant criminality and so discount reality. Thanks for putting it up there.

  by moon in the house of moe on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 11:48:55 AM PDT

  •  Well, thanks, but...

    I really can't take much more of this- is there a date this is guaranteed to be completed?  When does Ohio have to certify the results?  I'm glad there's still a chance, but it's such a small chance that I really don't know whether I should be hopeful or just accept it already.

    by SP on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 01:59:04 PM PDT

    •  be hopeful

      and accept it already.  

      by super simian on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 02:48:58 PM PDT

      •  Thanks

        I actually just changed my signature line just minutes befor I saw your diary.

        by Tomtech on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 04:59:16 PM PDT

•  Important

  #1.  The current count DOES NOT include the 4000 mistaken Bush votes.

  Otherwise I completely agree with you

  by AmericaIsBetterThanBush on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 11:56:02 AM PDT

  •  Are you sure?

    I recall seeing 136,000 as the vote margin on the day after the election, and the Gahanna vote problem wasn't officially caught for over a week after the election.  My understanding is that they're not going to do piecemeal corrections of the votes, but are simply waiting until all the votes are counted.

    by jsmdlawyer on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 11:59:45 AM PDT

    •  You're both wrong

      The error was discovered within 48 hours after the election. But, because the count that's been reported is "officially unofficial," the change won't be reflected in the reported count until the counties report their official canvasses. The 136,000 includes the extra Bush votes.

      by bonobo on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 12:11:00 PM PDT

    •  Hi....

      .....downthread, I had something happen that I find amusing....I received my first troll ratings, ever, on dKos -- and given who did it, I must tell you that it is an honor.

      That said, the reason for my post was to indicate that 'gracchi' has a way of expanding the size of diaries; whether of any value, I'll let you and others be the judge by looking at the nature of responses elicted from others in the two diaries referenced below.

      You may also find an interesting 'co-variant' or two.

      In any event, we know how hard the task is to achieve a simple, essential goal in our efforts to preserve our franchise -- count the votes accurately and securely, now.

      Thank you for an excellent diary.

      by understandinglife on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 05:37:38 PM PDT

      •  Whoever he is. . . .

        ...he's one contentious son of a gun.  I've only visited the Democratic Underground website a few times, but I noticed that he does the very same thing over at DU (with same screen name).  He seems as passionate about discrediting any argument suggesting vote tampering as the most strident among us are about demonstrating that tampering might have occurred.

        That is surprising, when you think about it.  Most people who are sick and tired of all the "fraud" diaries pop in on those diaries and offer their thoughts or disgust, then let the diary take its course.  They don't state over and over in the diary things like "this has already been debunked, there's nothing here", etc.  Gracchi seems to ride those diaries out from beginning to end like he's on a mission, repeating the same arguments over and over.  

        If he was getting troll-rated at dKos to the point of losing trusted user status, he probably re-upped his mojo nicely by posting his (recommended) diary about upcoming senate races. Sort of like many video games, where you can usually do certain things to bump up your "power" rating when it's lagging.  

        And if you're reading this, Gracchi, I haven't concluded that you're a troll or rated you as such -- just making an observation.  Like you, I have only been a registered user for a very, very short time, so I let others do troll ratings.  But sometimes it's hard to understand your posts any other way.

        by tompaine2004 on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 05:04:06 AM PDT

        •  Thank you...

          ....and, all I was attempting to do, was to indicated to fellow Kossacks a 'pattern' that seemed odd. Even when attacked, I didn't respond or 'troll rate' because it would only feed the pattern [a pattern that includes some remarkable co-variance, as well].

          Peace.

          by understandinglife on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 10:12:03 AM PDT

  •  It also excludes absentee ballots

    We don't even know how many of these there are. If we assume that they'll be split evenly between the candidates, they won't make any difference, but we don't know that for sure either.

    The Kerry campaign was encouraging people to vote absentee, to get votes "banked" in advance and to avoid the long lines on election day. But many absentee ballots come from the military, which have traditionally favored Bush (and probably still do, though not as strongly as last time round). Then again, there are absentee ballots from other Americans abroad, which are likely to favor Kerry.

    As the diary says, it's not over!

    by cybo on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 02:10:32 PM PDT

    •  Military absentee ballots

      Are a much bigger factor in states with no state income tax, like FL and TX, since if you're in the military (especially if overseas), you have a lot of latitude in choosing where your residence for tax purposes.  (Ohio has a state income tax, one of the highest in the country.)

      by RT on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 09:06:16 AM PDT

•  Most excellent; instead of fantasizing about...

  ....2006, and beyond, you are focusing on what matters, now.

  This election is most certainly not over.

  And, getting to the bottom of what happened, before claiming it's over -- before 'looking forward to 2006' -- is the greatest service each and every Citizen of our Democracy franchise can contribute.

  "It's about America" [the one on life support and in need of immediate, heroic treatment -- not wishful thinking about the future]

  by understandinglife on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 11:56:11 AM PDT

  •  A-M-E-N

    Fucking Amen! (This from an atheist...)
    This is THE watershed issue, because it seems clear, I think, that if transparent election results are not achieved this time, it will be clear for all to see that the US political system is no longer self-correcting. That realization in turn relieves all of us, right and left, from all previous allegiance to 'the process', which in turn opens the path to organized civil disobedience on the one hand, and overt repression on the other. There is an avalanche waiting to go off here, and it's hard to tell where it would stop, once it gets going. Either nationally or internationally.
    It's quite understandable then that it is really much more convenient to blog about 2006 strategies and delightful issues like that. So wonderfully safe too. And well-funded careers beckon for proven castrati within the 'permanent minority party'.

    by HansNYC on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 12:24:52 PM PDT

    •  Oh, were it in my power

      to give you a "5" I would have. I've been feeling for a year that I've been screaming into the wilderness about this issue. And realistically, once you think about it, there IS NO OTHER ISSUE!!! If we're (Democrats, society, whoever) seriously going to allow partisan activists to control our elections, then shit, welcome to the Matrix because we're all just props in a play to make it look real.

      Totalitarianism, with a faux veneer of democracy.

      And to think I used to look forward to the 21st Century.
      

      by Thumb on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 05:45:57 PM PDT

  •  Amen.

    i.e. double the Amen

    by larryrant on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 12:51:43 PM PDT

  •  Every Damn Time

    I hear people asking "Well, who do you like for 2008?" this keeps popping into my head.

    "The time has come," the Walrus said,
    "To talk of many things:
    Of shoes-and ships-and sealing wax-
    Of cabbages-and kings-
    And why the sea is boiling hot-
    And whether pigs have wings."

    Now, why is that?
    

    by mattman on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 02:39:43 PM PDT

    •  Thanks.......

      ....that's a good one, indeed.

      I've often thought, as I've read history about what it would be like to live at an 'inflection point' in a Nation or civilization. Prior to 2000, I thought that 'vietnam,' 'watergate,' 'the cold war,' perhaps were the significant inflection points in my life as an American citizen.

      But, I gotta tell you, the one we're living, here and now, is likely to be the biggest one in the history of our still fledgling Democracy.

      We can either wonder about winged pigs or we can organize, call a 'halt' to systemic disenfranchisement, now, and, then, in a legal and fair/verifiable election, put a boot into the butt of those snatching our Democracy and our heritage.

      I've made my choice.

      by understandinglife on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 03:32:08 PM PDT

      •  SWIM DOWN!!!!!

        Remember the scene in Finding Nemo where Nemo tells the fish to "swim down!  swim down!"  And all the fish push as hard as they can and they swim down and down and make the fishing boat, with all the fishermen who are trying to reel them in, tip over, and break the winch-like arm holding the net?  And the fish break free?

        This is the thing to remember:  everyone work together to push as hard as you can to resist this steamrolling over Democracy; to fight what they would have you think is the inevitability of being trapped in this net!  

        SWIM DOWN!

        by concernedamerican on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 06:57:34 PM PDT

        •  just keep swimming...

          just keep swimming
          just keep swimming
          just keep swimming swimming swimming
          what do we do
          we swim
          swim
          swim

          hee..sorry...got it stuck in my head :)
          

          by mytribe on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 08:03:37 PM PDT

          •  Finally -- another optimist!!!!!!!!!!

            Just keep swimming, baby -- good one.  The next thing we need to figure out is how to effectively swim together to make this happen on the PR front -- that's the biggest variable at this point.  Be ready -- as I told MarineLiberal, saddle 'em up and be ready to ride at dawn.  We're gonna need every gun we can find.

            by jsmdlawyer on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 08:56:31 PM PDT

            •  Thank you for your commitment and sage...

              ....development of this Diary.

              As to PR, I think we can keep it simple.
              ------------------------------

              Hi there Mr and Ms Citizen -- did you vote?

              If you did, then you know how you voted. [If you didn't shame, shame -- but we'll let you vote real soon now].

              Do you have any way to know that how you voted is the way your vote was counted?

              How can you be sure?

              Here are the reasons neither you or I or anyone can be sure. 1, 2, 3, 4, .....

              Perhaps it's time that we vote and know who and how our vote is being recorded.

              What do you think?

              No, let's not put it off 'til next time.

              Let's get it right, now.

              Let's do what our Democracy deserves, let's remind the world that 'We Are The People'; We Are In Charge of Our Government.'

              On with it.

              ------------------
              Thanks.

              by understandinglife on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 09:26:23 PM PDT

        •  Precisely, they ALL swam in one...

          ....effective direction, down.

          Thus, if we can gather the great forces of our networked community of citizens dedicated to saving the franchise of our democracy and 'swim' in one direction -- force a national audit of all ballots and a national dragnet of all forms of access to central tabulating centers, we will do what must be done, expose the facts to the fullest extent possible.

          It's not about 'who won'; it's about the simple fact that we have no basis on which to know anything until we have the facts -- votes accurately counted.

          All we need to remember is We Are Our Democracy, We Determine Our Government. It is Now Time for US to make it stick.

          Thank you

          by understandinglife on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 09:18:59 PM PDT

  •  Another 4 for ya, but with a caveat

    Let's keep in mind what Bill Clinton said when asked if his book tour would take away from Kerry's campaign (and I paraphrase): That's insulting to the voters. It's like saying they can't walk and chew gum at the same time.

    We can examine elections past, work toward election reform, AND work toward fixing the party concurrently. We are many (the election proved that beyond a reasonable doubt if nothing else), we are technically savvy, and we are motivated.

    Let's fight on all fronts, each to his or her own interests and strengths. Maybe that we haven't been doing so is the problem.

    by segmentis on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 12:13:00 PM PDT

    •  I have only urged the current focus...

      ....because of the catastrophic nature of the present situation and I do not consider that dramatic, hyperbole, or otherwise exaggerated.

      I am delighted if others wish to work on other topics, all I'm urging they consider is that between now and 13 Dec 2004 what we might need most is a totally focused effort on counting the vote, accurately; and, on uncovering any solid evidence of compromise, particularly at the crux -- the central tabulating systems.

      It is a suggestion tempered by the severity of the crisis and not meant as an insult to those who multi-task effectively.

      I appreciate your comments and have returned the kind gesture with a 4! for you!

      Peace.

      "It's about America" [the one on life support and in need of immediate, heroic treatment]

      by understandinglife on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 05:00:04 PM PDT

      •  Admiring your Zen

        I wish I could suppress my belligerence as well as you do o Zen Master...
        (Hihi).

        by HansNYC on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 05:48:54 PM PDT

        •  Generous of you...

          ...but, I'm just an old grey dude who barely is able to do one thing at time!! ;-)

          Peace, friend!

          And, we'll save our Democracy; you can count on it.

          by understandinglife on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 05:56:33 PM PDT

      •  Wholeheartedly agreed

        Examining and with any luck fixing this recent fiasco of an election is critical, and you're absolutely correct about the time constraints. I just don't want to see any crucial tasks swept under the carpet at the expense of others, which, I'm aware, is exactly the point you were endeavoring to make.

        Another 4 just to close the mutual admiration circle. :)

        by segmentis on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:15:01 PM PDT

•  Sure,

  But Blackwell's doing everything he can to trash as many provisional ballots as possible (changing the rules about which ballots to accept mid-stream, as I recall).  Hopefully, the lawyers who are in OH are on things like that.  Blackwell needs to be watched very closely as this all unfolds.  

  by Categorically Imperative on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 12:05:26 PM PDT

  •  Right-- though traditionally provisionals

    go 90% democratic, what we need to keep in mind is Blackwell's avowed and proven intent to refuse or trash as many of them as possible.  He is absolutely committed to screwing with the provisional ballots, which includes his bucking tradition and the best interests of Democracy in Ohio.

    by concernedamerican on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 12:34:36 PM PDT

    •  But in order to do that

      he must do it based on the rules as they exist PRIOR TO THE ELECTION.  He cannot create new rules in order to trash the provisional ballots.  Oh how I love Bush v. Gore!!!!  Delicious irony.  Love it, love it, love it.  Fuck the Supreme Court, I'd love to see their faces if their dumbass precedent gets shoved up their asses this time.  So far, from what I hear, that's EXACTLY what's happening, and why they're panicking as a result.

      BTW, Rebecca, I admit that I'm breaking my rule -- I used Ohio in a diary, although not in the title.

      by jsmdlawyer on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 12:38:07 PM PDT

      •  Pardon me for being inappropriate,

        but I think I love you.

        Ok, that's over the top, but you're saying with some authority what I deeply believe to be true.  Overturning the election would be fantastic.  But holding their lying, cheating feet to the fire and making them sweat is excellent in its own right.

        by whometense on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 03:24:41 PM PDT

        •  Wow

          I didn't know the power of the keyboard had such an emotional impact.  Maybe I should try that more often . . . .    :-D

          As to your substantive point, I will be shocked if there isn't some seriously panicked sweating in Bushland this week.  If they're not worried, they're stupid, and I've never thought they were stupid.  I'd put the odds of that at about 95%, and the election being swung in Ohio at about 50-50 right now.

          by jsmdlawyer on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 04:11:33 PM PDT

          •  Ahem

            I love you, too.

            by Maryscott OConnor on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 07:13:01 PM PDT

            •  Oh my God

              I think I'm gonna get weak in the knees now -- one of my true heroes loves me.  I think that's supposed to be the other way around, Maryscott --I love you too.  I better stop typing for a while or my keyboard's gonna overheat.  :)

              by jsmdlawyer on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 07:28:57 PM PDT

              •  Get a room, you two

                ...but be careful, "they" like to watch.

                by DetroitDave on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 11:42:04 PM PDT

        •  Agreed

          It would be so nice to have the victory, but the irony of having them hoisted on their George Peppard is way too delicious.

          by NYBri on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 04:20:49 PM PDT

          •  With your permission

            I'll be using your "hoisted on their George Peppard" line these four coming years.

            by Ad Absurdum on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:18:03 AM PDT

            •  be my guest....

              by NYBri on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:27:27 AM PDT

      •  Will not? Cannot? Would not?

        "He cannot create new rules in order to trash the provisional ballots."

        ---He is not permitted to, but will that stop him from trying to create new rules?  All he's got to risk is that no-one will catch him out on it.  Who would make him resign, should he be "caught" attempting, illegally, to change the rules?  In this Republican state machine, no-one.  Blackwell knows he can operate with a certain degree of impunity, and I wouldn't put it past him to try anything so as to fuck with the results.

        Notice how I didn't say the "O" word!

        by concernedamerican on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 06:31:20 PM PDT

        •  Lawyers to the Rescue!!!

          Come on, Rebecca.  You know the drill.  Blackwell makes a ridiculous interpretation of the law, like, say, you need to have your birthday on your provisional ballot, when the rule in 2000 was clearly to the contrary, as I understand it.  He backed down on this one last week.

          But let's say he didn't.  And at the appropriate time, Kerry goes to court and says to a judge, "hey, that Blackwell dude changed the rules."

          There is no chance that this type of effort by Blackwell will fly.  Bush v. Gore is absolutely clear on this, as is federal law -- you can't change the rules after the game has started.  It will not be allowed.

          And, since someone made a basketball analogy, I'll do football.  We're in the fourth quarter.  There's 9 minutes left.  We have all our timeouts.  We're down by 9, 23-14.  We need two scores, and we have the ball.  But it was 23-0 at the half; we have the momentum.  And two of their key defensive players are out with injuries (all right, I'm winging it here).

          Will we win?  Iffy; but the momentum is with us.  Can we win (the point of this diary)?  No question, yes.  What will happen?  Stay tuned.

          by jsmdlawyer on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 07:03:14 PM PDT

          •  You're a lawyer, and you know

            better than I what lawyers can do in these situations to ride in to the rescue.  

            I'm an academic, and there's a part of me that is trained to remain skeptical.  So that part of me- a little part-- is skeptical, even as I am moved by your conviction, because Blackwell is an evil SOB.  

            But Jonathan, God love you, I'll trust you on this-- you are a man with tremendous power and passion emanating from your voice and words in this diary.  You know in your bones that we have the momentum, and you are making so many of us feel that too.
            

            by concernedamerican on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 07:18:32 PM PDT

          •  Hate to mention this...

            But as I understand it Bush v. Gore was stating to be a one shot deal, not applicable to any other future situation.

            by JaneEyrez on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:02:35 AM PDT

            •  Good point

              except that the lower courts aren't interpreting it that way.  Cases decided by the Supreme Court are precedent and their logic, at least, is what informs the decision of lower courts who have to wrestle with these issues.

              And, IIRC, the only part of the opinion that "today only" language applied to is the equal protection analysis, which is not what I'm arguing here.  What I'm saying is that there's a 19th century federal law that says that the rules in effect on the day of the election are the rules for that election -- period.  And the Supreme Court referenced that statute in Bush v. Gore.  And now they get to eat their words, literally.

              by jsmdlawyer on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:58:52 AM PDT

    •  He's tossing out some, but not most

      According to an article in the Cleveland Plain Dealer (registration or BugMeNot requried), they've checked about 6,000 of the 25,000 provisional ballots in Cuyahoga County (the one with the most voters and the heaviest Dem margins). Of those, they've decided to keep about two thirds:

      http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/110034202128630.xml

      It also says that in one other they're keeping about 90%.

      by cybo on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 02:19:19 PM PDT

      •  That's not good. 66% of provisionals in

        the most heavily democratic county isn't going to cut it.

        by upstate NY on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 02:34:55 PM PDT

        •  Err...

          If only 66% of ballots are being counted, shouldn't that be an indicator that something is wrong?

          by cwgannon on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 05:48:53 PM PDT

      •  no votes with date of birth missing?

        I read that article as saying the 66% does not include ones that don't have the birth dates on them--perhaps those were still in question at that tally.  Do we know that Blackwell has backed down on that?  Perhaps that total will go up them.

        by nj mom on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 03:58:39 AM PDT

        •  Courts over ruled Blackwell

          He was forced to back down on friday with a conference call to all county boards of elections.
          The law actually covered this and Blackwell et al were in the wrong.

          by DanD on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 05:05:06 AM PDT

  •  Here's the deal

    Ohio has always had a restrictive interpretation of provisionall ballots (i.e., they can only be counted if they come from the correct precinct -- unlike some 15 other states, where they can be counted as long as they're in the right COUNTY).

    Many Ohio provisionals will not be counted because they come out of precinct.

    This is why the "90% of provisionals were counted in 2000" has NO BEARING on the 2004 race. Provisionals were hardly used in 2000 (around 1000, compared to around 150,000 this year) and there were lots of new voters who clearly voted out of precinct.

    2/3 is to be expected, or even less. NOT 90%.

    Please, please remember this.

    by Pops on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 07:21:42 PM PDT

    •  This is right and why i'm not as optimistic

      Even though the law said votes had to come in the proper precinct, my understanding is that in the past that law has been very loosely applied, and if a properly registered voter ccast a ballot, but in the wrong precinct, they have been counting them in the past, but they will not be allowed to this election. Being in the wrong precinct is why many provisional ballots are handed out in the first place, so many more will be thrown out than usual.

      I do wish I had the faith of many of you here, though, and will be as happy as anyone if you're proven right....

      by DonBinTN on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 10:04:08 PM PDT

•  Absentee ballots

  Do you know about the absentee ballots? Whether they've already been counted or are still to be counted?
  CV is that absentee ballots, esp with military would be a wash, but I don't know.
  

  by jiffykeen on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 12:08:36 PM PDT

  •  Yeah, but this time

    the civil overseas absentee ballots will generally be influenced by fair media coverage in the countries they are coming from, in contrast to US media coverage.
    I'm just saying that I expect the civil overseas ballots to favor Kerry heavily.
    I don't know how the overseas military vote will look like. Guesses?

    by cwkraus4clark on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 12:46:09 PM PDT

    •  I guess it would depend on where one

      was stationed. I'll be a lot of the kids in Iraq aren't so happy, but those in Germany may be very happy.
      I want to know what the military results are. I hope we find out.

      by Patsy Stone on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 01:28:02 PM PDT

    •  As an overseas civilian voter

      I can assure you that we voted in HUGE numbers this month and that we were massively in favor of getting rid of Bush (regardless of how we felt individually about Kerry).

      Most of us had never experienced anti-American hositlity until the past two years.  Now it is endemic, even in NATO countries.

      You bet we voted.  It's nice to think those who sent ballots to Ohio could determine the result.

      by LondonYank on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 03:29:06 AM PDT

•  there are pending lawsuits.....

  picked up from blog.democrat.com:

  "From Dan Hoffheimer:
  Monday, Nov. 8

  The Kerry-Edwards campaign and the Democratic Party in Ohio are involved in several pending lawsuits that are likely to go on, at least until we are certain that the provisional ballots are properly counted. John Kerry wants to see that all Ohioans' proper ballots are counted, even if it does not change the outcome of the election. I am personally committed to meeting his expection and spent all of today on this issue and will likely be working on this close to fulltime for the foreseeable future. This includes the class actions that we already have pending. There is nothing to prevent other interested parties from filing their own lawsuits. I have told this to the press, so you may share this email with your friends as you may wish.

  Daniel J. Hoffheimer
  State Legal Counsel
  OHIO Kerry-Edwards 2004, Inc."

  by boudicca on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 12:08:39 PM PDT

•  On going.

  This is from an interview on CNN, in the spring of 2001. How many questionable elections will it take before it finally sinks in? It's a flawed system.

  Former President Jimmy Carter said Monday the United States does not have an acceptable democratic system because voting systems vary so much among the country's 4,000 counties.

  "There's no way really for us to have any uniformity, no way to guarantee that voters' decisions will be counted accurately and there is no way to educate, in advance, a system of voters, say in a particular area like around Atlanta, because we probably have got 10 different ways to vote in this immediate television coverage (area)," Carter said.

  He spoke to CNN from the Carter Presidential Library in Atlanta, which was hosting the first public hearing by the National Commission on Federal Election Reform. Carter, a Democrat, and former President Gerald Ford, a Republican, are honorary co-chairs of the politically balanced panel.
  

  by CFnAR on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 12:13:21 PM PDT

•  FOUR MORE YEARS

  I hope they do a serious review to ensure that these regular voting problems are gone for good and we can hold free and fair elections from the next time to forever.

  For this time, I'm glad Bush won and even if fraud is proven and Kerry should have won, I hope it comes out too late to make any changes to the status quo. I need Bush as President for 4 more years.

  The Republicans have a majority in the Senate and Congress. The last thing I want to see is a Democratic President Kerry wasting his 4 (to 8) years as President trying to clear Bush's mess vis-à-vis the so-called war, school system, health, economy, job losses, national debt, world respect, etc. with the Republican majority in both houses doing their best to ensure that he fails.

  That would lead to a failed Democratic government to be followed naturally by a Republican government reelection. Same old story - Clinton built, Bush destroyed and now Kerry would rebuild to hand it back to the God's chosen people to destroy again? Thanks but no thanks.

  I pray that our troops come home safe and soon and the killing of innocent Iraqis can stop. Nobody, except Osama and his gang, needs to die.
  

  by Kenyan on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 12:16:47 PM PDT

  •  I see your point...

    ...but do we really want to give GWB four more years to destroy everything he touches if we can help it?  The people should (yeah, I know...) understand the mess Kerry will inherit if he manages to win the election.
    

    by KTinOhio on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 12:21:27 PM PDT

    •  He's right that a

      Bush presidency is better for us as Democrats in the long run, but worse for the country, short and long term.  Forced to choose between party and country, I'll take country every time.

      by jsmdlawyer on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 12:29:33 PM PDT

      •  Tin Foil Hat land

        Anyone who actually thinks that there will be a fair election after 2 more years of Bush + Rethugs in Congress is seriously on the DLC koolaid.  Four years and we really hopeless.

        by Sox Fan on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 03:39:28 PM PDT

    •  The next four years is going to be bad

      But bush's "New vision" will change america forever and for the worse from Every political perspective.

      The new economic plan is to finalise the permanent elimination of taxes on the upper class. No taxes on dividends. No taxes on capital gains. No inheritance tax. Slice that anyway you wish it means that the 5%  who own 95% of america (those arent exagerated numbers) will now own a larger and larger share of it and that share will grow faster.

      Add these facts in. The US currently owes 4.5 trillion dollars as of this moment. We are obligated to pay out another 51 TRILLION. Bush's rape of social security adds 2 trillion to either number. Our deficit is currently hovering around 400 billion a year. That is 400 billion each year added onto the debt of 4.5 trillion. Plus interest. Remember that each year a substantial chunk of our budget goes solely to pay interest on the debt. We are outsourcing our economic power aka Manufacturing and High tech industries (programming, soon the last of our engineering disciplines etc) and you have a nation that will in a few decades at most consist in effect of an upper upper class and the poor. A permanent aristocratic plutocracy.

      Here's the bad news.
      We have no way of coming up with that money other than, when the crisis hits, a crisis worse than the depression because unlike the depression we cannot borrow our way out, the only way out will be stunningly high taxes during a time of massive unemployment, inflation, and high interest rates.
      In other words the wealthy sit it out while the rest of america lines up at soup kitchens.

      And who's fault is this? Bush's? The country club republicans always wanted what is happening and is about to happen. Democrats stopped them by appealing to the working class. That's over now.  We abandoned the working class and poor in order to appeal to the upper middle and upper class, along with most of the rest of the democratic base.

      The fault is ours. For allowing our party to be hijacked by the right.

      by cdreid on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 12:40:38 PM PDT

      •  last i checked and read from the SCLM

        we have gone beyond $7 trillion.

        by lostinbrasil on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 01:19:08 PM PDT

        •  I got that number

          from an economist trying to get the message out that all is not peachy. Of course some of his ideas to solve the problem were, like most economists, simply dumb and very classist. But his analysis was spot on.

          by cdreid on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 02:41:31 AM PDT

    •  Bush

      I think we are safe there.

      Bush and the Neocons are the problem and are the people intent on destroying everything for personal gain but the Republican party itself is not. Some really powerful Republicans are as pissed off with Bush as we are but decided to put partisan issues ahead of everything to retain Republican control of the government. Now that they have what they wanted, they will take Bush to task. Remember they are Americans first and Republicans second.

      I really think Bush will be forced to put on his work clothes and start cleaning up his mess. The force will come from within his party as much as from ours.

      I hope and pray I am right.

      by Kenyan on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 12:44:47 PM PDT

      •  Yes

        I think there is reason to expect this to happen, or that at least they will try...

        by larryrant on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 12:57:30 PM PDT

        •  Which Republicans?

          McCain, Swarzenegger, and Giuliani can hardly call themselves moderates after granting unconditional support to this extremist administration.  And, in Giuliani's case, doing Bush's dirty work for him.

          I can't really forgive them for allowing Bush & Co. to have 4 more years.  

          Do you really expect them to turn on him now?

          by diana04 on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 01:52:48 PM PDT

          •  Arnold

            Schwarzenagger's putting up billboards in CA to pursuade the public to change the Constitution in hopes of becoming the first foreign born president since the country began... he needed to support Bush...

            You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do....Anne Lamott

            by crkrjx on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 07:44:07 PM PDT

            •  Give me a picture.

              I personally don't want an actor (yes I mean Reagan too) or puppet in the Whitehouse. I am initially not in favor of this ammendment Bu$hco will probaly want to remove the two term restriction with that one.

              by Tomtech on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 07:53:27 PM PDT

      •  I'm afraid that's wishful thinking

        The old guard conservatives have lost control of their party.  Four more years of G.W. Bush, now unfettered by the need to please anyone outside of his decidely un-Christlike religiod Right base, will be disastrous for this nation.  Others here have mentioned the Supreme Court and the effects any likely Bush appointments will have on us for at least a generation.  

        SCOTUS appointments aside, there are even more heinous dangers in another four years.  Yesterday in kos, hopesprings posted an excellent diary that contained Bill Moyers' recent editorial in the Sojourner magazine.  I apologize for the length of these excerpts, but if you or anyone truly believes that we can survive the next four years of a Bush administration even relatively unscathed, I think it's important for you to consider some of Moyers' thoughts (highlights mine):

        ... But the class war was declared a generation ago, in a powerful polemic by a wealthy right-winger, William Simon, who was soon to be Secretary of the Treasury. By the end of the '70s, corporate America had begun a stealthy assault on the rest of our society and the principles of our democracy. Looking backward, it all seems so clear that we wonder how we could have ignored the warning signs at the time.

        What has been happening to the middle and working classes is not the result of Adam Smith's invisible hand but the direct consequence of corporate activism, intellectual collusion, the rise of a religious orthodoxy that has made an idol of wealth and power, and a host of political decisions favoring the powerful monied interests who were determined to get back the privileges they had lost with the Depression and the New Deal. They set out to trash the social contract; to cut workforces and their wages; to scour the globe in search of cheap labor; and to shred the social safety net that was supposed to protect people from hardships beyond their control. Business Week put it bluntly: "Some people will obviously have to do with less....It will be a bitter pill for many Americans to swallow the idea of doing with less so that big business can have more."

        To create the intellectual framework for this revolution in public policy, they funded conservative think tanks - the Heritage Foundation, the Hoover Institution, and the American Enterprise Institute - that churned out study after study advocating their agenda.

        To put political muscle behind these ideas, they created a formidable political machine. Thomas Edsall of The Washington Post, one of the few journalists to cover the issues of class, wrote: "During the 1970s, business refined its ability to act as a class, submerging competitive instincts in favor of joint, cooperative action in the legislative area." Big business political action committees flooded the political arena with a deluge of dollars. And they built alliances with the Religious Right - Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority and Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition - who happily contrived a cultural war as a smokescreen to hide the economic plunder of the very people who were enlisted as foot soldiers in the war.

        And they won. Warren Buffett, one of the richest men in America and the savviest investor of them all, put it this way: "If there was a class war, my class won." Well, there was, Mr. Buffett, and as a recent headline in The Washington Post proclaimed: `Business Wins With Bush."

        Look at the spoils of victory: Over the past three years, they've pushed through $2 trillion dollars in tax cuts. More than half of the benefits are going to the wealthiest 1 percent. You could call it trickle-down economics, except that the only thing that trickled down was a sea of red ink in our state and local governments, forcing them to cut services and raise taxes on middle class working America.

        Now the Congressional Budget Office forecasts deficits totaling $2.75 trillion over the next 10 years. These deficits have been part of their strategy. The late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan tried to warn us, when he predicted that President Reagan's real strategy was to force the government to cut domestic social programs by fostering federal deficits of historic dimensions. President Reagan's own budget director, David Stockman, admitted as much. Now the leading right-wing political strategist, Grover Norquist, says the goal is to "starve the beast" - with trillions of dollars in deficits resulting from trillions of dollars in tax cuts, until the U.S. government is so anemic and anorexic it can be drowned in the bathtub.

        Take note: The corporate conservatives and their allies in the political and Religious Right are achieving a vast transformation of American life that only they understand because they are its advocates, its architects, and its beneficiaries. In creating the greatest economic inequality in the advanced world, they have saddled our nation, our states, and our cities and counties with structural deficits that will last until our children's children are ready for retirement; and they are systematically stripping government of all its functions except rewarding the rich and waging war.

        And, yes, they are proud of what they have done to our economy and our society. If instead of producing a news magazine I was writing for Saturday Night Live, I couldn't have made up the things that this crew in Washington have been saying. The president's chief economic adviser says shipping technical and professional jobs overseas is good for the economy. The president's Council of Economic Advisers reports that hamburger chefs in fast food restaurants can be considered manufacturing workers. The president's labor secretary says it doesn't matter if job growth has stalled because "the stock market is the ultimate arbiter." And the president's Federal Reserve chair says that the tax cuts may force cutbacks in Social Security - but hey, we should make the tax cuts permanent anyway.

        You just can't make this stuff up. You have to hear it to believe it. This may be the first class war in history where the victims will die laughing.

        But what they are doing to middle class and working Americans and the poor - and to the workings of American democracy - is no laughing matter. It calls for righteous indignation and action. Otherwise our democracy will degenerate into a shell of itself in which the privileged and the powerful sustain their own way of life at the expense of others and the United States becomes another Latin America with a small crust of the rich at the top governing a nation of serfs.
        

        
        The full text is available at Sojourner or the excellent diary Bill Moyers Eloquent Views... posted here earlier this weekend.

        I admit to giving in at times to my own snarky attitude that follows your line of logic:  "Let 'em screw things up so badly that maybe finally people will realize how bad they really are" and "They made their bed, now let 'em lie in it, hah hah!" kind of thinking.  But my problem with that is, it's our bed, too.

        It is true, what you say, that in the (unlikely) event Kerry emerges as the winner of this tainted election, he will face an uphill struggle and, no doubt, many of his efforts will be unsuccessful in the face of unfriendly opposition from both houses of congress.  But the alternative -- a government seemingly bent on self-destruction led by a man who sees himself as a messenger of a vengeful God -- seems, to me, to be far worse.

        by DetroitDave on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 01:58:02 PM PDT

        •  help

          I"m usually really good at deciphering the acronyms on this site, but could someone please tell me what SCOTUS stands for??

          by katchen on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 03:17:52 PM PDT

          •  SCOTUS

            Supreme Court Of The United States

            by DetroitDave on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 03:20:01 PM PDT

            •  SCOTUS

              It took me a long time to figure out what it meant too, because if you change it just slightly it's scrotum!  

              by elveta on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 04:04:36 PM PDT

              •  Nuts to that.

                nt

                by b2witte on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:47:17 AM PDT

  •  You're forgetting the importance of the SCOTUS...

    nomination(s)... debatably the most important event expected in the next Pres. term... I don't want their "permanent" majority installed this term... besides someone must clean up these irresponsible Republicans' messes right?

    by lobezno on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 12:29:44 PM PDT

  •  4 more years

    In the NYT (I think?) shortly after the election, one of the columnists wrote something to this effect:

    I wish nothing but misfortune for my political enemies, but draw the line if that means wishing misfortune on my country.

    While I anticipate wretched things happening under a second Bush presidency, and while I'm glad the blame will be placed firmly on his shoulders, the cost (hundreds of thousands of lives in Iraq, possibly a total devaluation of the dollar, etc.) is too high to wish for more disaster.

    by Chicago Lulu on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 12:41:18 PM PDT

  •  if recounts

    can overturn the presidential race, why can't more recounts in close races overturn some senate races too, like Castor vs Martinez in Florida, Bunning vs Mongiardo in Kentucky. There were most probably shenanigi in those elections too. If something glaring comes up in the prez recount in O. and NH, Pandora's box is then open for business.

    by zha zha zha on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 01:14:50 PM PDT

    •  Four!

      A 4, for the solid thinking, of course, but mainly for shenanigi!  Woof.  Thanks!

      by DetroitDave on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 02:03:02 PM PDT

    •  I Agree

      Betty Castor conceded but had also requested a recount from what I read but I haven't heard anything about it since then. Anyone with info about that? I think she should have requested it regardless.  That was a close one and Mel Martinez is just pure evil.

      by MelvinFrohike on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 04:05:01 PM PDT

    •  Four

      for the post, and also the screen name ;^)

      "It's not about how much time we have, it's about what we do with it."

      by RubDMC on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 08:55:13 PM PDT

  •  I almost agree, except for this nagging dread

    of what America will look like four years from now.  I would love to see these bastards try to pass the buck from here on out onto Clinton or the Democrats for the mess they have made.  Yet as that would give me great pleasure, the prospect of Bush appointing more conservative justices to the Supreme Court, rewriting our Constitution and conducting National Prayer services from the White House is far more frightening.  We are already facing a horrible mess created by Bush and these lilly livered Republican partisan hacks, but I would rather see an ineffective President Kerry spending these next four years halting the downward spiral into oblivion.  We can still work hard in the interim to change the makeup of the House and Senate for his productive second term!  Obviously this is not the optimum situation, but four more years of Republican party (radicals) controlling the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of our government is unimaginable!  I'd prefer four years of stagnant, ineffective government over the total dismantling of our Democracy by these radical religious ignorant fundamentalists.

    by Jeanni on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 03:11:46 PM PDT

  •  I fail to agree

    with your point.  Bush is only going to dig us in deeper and deeper. Plus there is the Supreme Court issue that is going to happen.  Changing the direction of the Court is devastating and will have major long-term impacts.

    With Kerry, even though there is a Republican held House and Senate, the players would eventually had been forced to play together nicely, to some degree...Now all we have to succumb to is a right-wing so-called mandate, with more war, more unanswered spending and taxcuts, more unanswered problems in healthcare and social security, and who knwo what the hell with the Supreme Court..

    Fight at every cost....

    by jhwygirl on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 03:34:14 PM PDT

  •  Four More Years....

    Unfortunately....I am not sure we can SURVIVE four more years of Bush.

    by Alizaryn on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 05:08:30 PM PDT

  •  asdf

    In most cases, I would agree with you completely as all your points are good ones.

    The one thing that this president can do that would change the history of the US for years to come is the nominations to the Supreme Court.

    If it wasnt for that, I would say let Bush sleep in the bed he made.

    =\

    by parulb on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 11:03:10 AM PDT

•  BTW

  Thanks to jsmdlawyer for the excellent diary! Gives me hope. In AR, they use optical scanners, what are the odds for flaws? Anyone?

  by CFnAR on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 12:18:45 PM PDT

  •  Look at New Hampshire

    The recount Ralph Nader has requested in New Hampshire is supposed to be the test case for widespread election fraud due to computerised counting and totaling equiptment. If actual fraud or major errors (assume >3%)I hope there will be the greatest grass roots movement in the history of this  country for recounts nationwide. If they were gonna try to inflate the nationwide totals the best place to do it is in strong blue states. Who will think anyone would complain of Kerrry winning by 4% instead of 9%.

    by Tomtech on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 05:19:16 PM PDT

•  Ssshhhhh....

  Don't let the rat out of the bag till the trap is sprung... I apologize for the mixed metaphors but that is what came to mind...

   I think that your dead on about this, in that Kerry and co.  realized early on that nothing was to be gained and everything could be lost if the pundits could paint the Kerry as a sore loser... an additional reason to wait and lay low is that if there is evidence of fraud on the part of the Repubs it would take time to gather and process said evidence... Remember, Kerry was a prosecutor... and I would call him anything but impulsive...

  Recommended...

  PS; I never thought that Kerry would go down without a fight... i.e.; He will pursue all avenues as quietly as possible and if he finds something then he'll respond with righteous indignation --as he should-- and Bush then becomes the wanna' be that is prematurely grabbing the reigns of power...

  by lobezno on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 12:20:34 PM PDT

  •  The Closer

    Sure, no one thought he would "close" long after Election Day, but I'll take it if it happens.  The looks on the Pubs' faces will be reward enough for me.
    

    by KTinOhio on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 12:22:46 PM PDT

    •  Yeah,

      I'm trying to imagine how this would make them shit their pants.  There's no way to spin it without being total hypocrites, but when has that ever stopped them before?  Oh, the irony of it all!

      I'm crossing my fingers, but not holding my breath...

      by frsbdg on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 06:12:11 PM PDT

  •  Credit where credit is due though

    The Greens and the Libertarians are our allies in this.  They are getting the ball rolling for Kerry.

    Let's not completely steal their thunder.  Much can be gained by letting them fight the first battle in the media.  Let the Republicans beat up on the "little guys" and expose themselves as the vote suppressors that they are.  When the Dems throw their weight behind the smaller parties, we'll have a strong "Coalition of the Willing."

    by apotropaic on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 12:57:07 PM PDT

    •  Allies

      The Greens and the Libertarians are our allies in this.

      That's the most useful function of a third party at this stage. They're doing exactly the right thing and they'll win some support for doing so.

      by fly on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 01:05:44 PM PDT

    •  er, Nader

      I know he's hated by many here, but Nader has been front and center speaking out and working for recounts almost since election day. His recount requests for NH helped keep this issue in front of the media, and it appears he's finally been granted his recount. AFAIK this will be the first national exposure of the electronic voting machines under recount-level scrutiny.

      by Robert E on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 02:02:56 PM PDT

      •  Definitely

        Now let's see him do it in Florida.  Make Jeb sorry he put him on the ballot by executive order.

        by apotropaic on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 02:33:09 PM PDT

  •  OKAY, BUT

    I think the stealth approach can backfire.

    Let's presume the best-for-the-country outcome...that:
    

  • Kerry wins Ohio + Florida + New Mexico on recounts (enough EV margin to define the result as "not close".
  • The recount switches 1.8 MM votes so Kerry has now won the popular vote, too.
  • Enough votes are turned that affect the Carson and Castor Senate races.
  • Enough votes are turned that affect about 3-12 House races.
  • That this all happens before Inauguration in late January.
    
    If this happens (fingers crossed) after militant Repubs and the millions of others who foolishly wasted their votes on the Bush Junior Team have had six+ weeks to internalize their presumed "victory", and in this fairly rosy scenario, they are 48% of the electorate, how are they going to bring themselves to step aside without us calling out whatever National Guard are still stateside?

    I think it requires laying groundwork for the changeover now, planting the awareness now that a changeover might have to happen. I've done change management for a living -- it's hard to buffer the viloence of people's emotions even when it's somehing as trivial as what version of Windows they are going to have to use on their computers at work.

    The last time we removed from office a criminal president, it took 15 months from the beginning of the awareness to a majority of the country being ready to see him go. His defenders tenaciously protected him, argued for him, while the evidence passed "incontrovertable" about seven months before his support finally thinned out to the pure wingnuts. I'm not sure Nixon is a perfect analogy for Bush Junior, and that was long enough ago that we've changed as a culture, and certainly we don't have the mainstream media ethics we had then. The longer the argument takes to become engaged, the more rigid & unchangable the situation becomes.

    I'm not sure the stealth approach isn't the best one for immediate success, but if the better outcome happens from the audits and recounts (and that means jail time or one-way tix to Guantanamo for the fraud perps), the stealth approach makes it harder to govern.