Skip to main content

In general, I'm no conspiracy theorist.  I do think there's strong evidence that Gore would have won the election in 2000 were it not for a coordinated strategy in Florida of denial of ballot access by Bush supporters which was augmented by the butterfly ballot fiasco.  I think there is some evidence that denial of access and/or corrupted/broken voting tabulation swung the outcome of the 2004 presidential election in Ohio, although it seems ambiguous to me.  But I tend to believe that these are isolated actions and that there was not a top-down effort to steal the presidential election in either year.

That said, events of the last few days have me carefully looking over the election equipment status in key swing states, and worrying that chicanery in Virginia or Florida or Jefferson/Arapahoe counties in Colorado will end up being the deciding factor in this election.  The reason for my worry is that I posed a simple question to myself: if I were in charge of a "vast right-wing conspiracy", and I was planning on stealing this election, how would I go about it?

The answer breaks down into three parts:

1) Generate enough FUD* about Obama to keep things close.

that's "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt, for those not down on the lingo.

This is certainly what's going on right now.  I'm accustomed to the McCain camp sending out lie after lie about Obama, such as the constant refrain that he will raise everyone's taxes.  After all, if they're lying about McCain's and Palin's records, why not lie about your opponent as well?

That said, McCain's latest ad left me in something of a state of shock (and led to me immediately donating money).  It's one thing to lie about someone's record.  It's another thing to falsely state that he wants to teach sex ed to kindergartners.  It's still another altogether to so blatantly play the race card by juxtaposing Obama's face against little white kids while printing the word "sex" on the screen.  It's not hyperbole at all when Josh Marshall states, "John McCain is running the sleaziest, most dishonest and race-baiting campaign of our lifetimes".

It puts the Obama campaign in a tough spot, because they want to stay on message, which basically involves stapling McCain to Bush and talking about the economy, but they have to respond to this crap as well.  Fortunately, the media seems to be slowly souring on McCain's lies, so it's not as much of a two-front war.

2) Twist the polls so that it looks like you might win.

Because if you win from 10 points down, it looks VERY suspicious.  If you win from 2 points down, then hey, the polls were a little off, so no big deal.

This is the part that really got me thinking lately.    You've probably heard of the recent polls that show McCain moving into a small lead over Obama.  Now, you may pass those off as a convention bounce.  But what you may not know is that those polls had EXTREMELY suspicious partisan ID breakdowns.  In other words, despite overwhelming evidence that Democrats outnumber Republicans this year by a very large margin, those results were based on pools of responders that were roughly equally Democratic and Republican.  In other words, those polls are almost meaningless.

I've thought throughout the general election season that the polls have understated Obama's support, due to Obama's historic efforts to register voters who are not considered "likely voters" by the polling models.  But these polls go far beyond that, and actually tilt things away from what has been considered the baseline for polling so far this year.  They're exactly the sort of polls you would create if you were trying to generate a false level of confidence that McCain might win.

I want to emphasize that I have absolutely zero evidence that Gallup, CBS, et. al. were influenced by an outside source to twist their polling results.  That said, of course there are people at those polling places who have their own biases.  Moreover, any large media conglomerate has an incentive to make their poll results surprising and new, because it gives them a narrative to work with.

3) Actually steal the election through vote-adding or vote-removing.

This is the obvious necessary final step to stealing an election.  The interesting/worrisome thing is that despite the controversies of 2000 and 2004, there are still plenty of places where voting systems are vulnerable/questionable.  Ohio, which has switched to Democratic executive control, has cleaned up its act fairly well.  Every county in the state either uses paper ballots or has a voter-verified paper trail for all digitally recorded votes.  Pennsylvania is a potential recount nightmare, but if Pennsylvania is the swing state than Obama's already lost anyway.

The real concerns this time around are Virginia, Colorado, and our old friend Florida.  Virginia is in terrible shape, with many counties using nothing but touchscreens that don't produce a paper trail.  If Virginia stays "too close to call" deep into the night, don't get your hopes up.  Colorado is mostly in good shape, except for two counties, Arapahoe and Jefferson counties.  This sounds OK unless you realize that those two counties contain most of the Denver suburbs and account for over a fifth of the state's population.  Florida does appear to be offering paper optical scan ballots in every county, but they are also using touchscreen voting that lacks a paper trail.  A word of advice to any Democratic voters in Florida - insist on a paper ballot.

Anyway, I hope none of this makes me a tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy nut.  I'm not necessarily trying to argue that there is an overarching strategy underway to steal the election.  What I am arguing is that some of the groundwork for election-day dirty tricks is right there in front of us.

Originally posted to doktarr on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:52 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  If you vote absentee (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Overseas, miguelmas, cheftdp

    Make a photocopy of your ballot before sending it.

    I personally still prefer to vote the old-fashioned way by showing up at my precinct. Yes it's inconvenient and time consuming, but when I'm done I know for sure my vote has been received and it will be counted.

    So many impeachable offenses, so little time... -6.0 -5.33

    by Cali Techie on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:57:05 AM PDT

  •  Put Up A Tip Jar (0+ / 0-)

    Tou did some good work... you earned some mojo

  •  Rec This Diary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Overseas, Cali Techie

    This diary states the nature of the REAL problem we are  facing... Palin is just a Rove distraction...
    The real chicanery will go when the votes are(not) counted

  •  I think as many as possible (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    UneasyOne

    of us need to work the polling places on election day in any capacity we can, including hanging around and bringing them coffee if need be. Volunteer now. Plan to be there. Get the day off from work. The more eyes that are on them, the better.
    If there are places where there are going to be long lines of people waiting to vote, take water for them and anything else you can think of to keep the people in line and not give up on voting.
    Know the rules for your state and be ready to help voters if they are challenged. If a first time voter has a problem, s[he] may just give up and walk away not knowing their rights to vote. Often they just need a champion to help them stand up to "authority".
    This is our election and, yes, we can win. This is our time.

    The Justice Department is no longer a credible defender of the rule of law or the Constitution.

    by Overseas on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:15:20 AM PDT

  •  Vote prevention (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    UneasyOne

    Caging, intimidation, ID rules, registration purging - you left out the biggest tactic, the one that they've been working to death.

    Hans Spakovsky & Thor Hearne have worked hard, & deserve notice.

  •  interesting diary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    doktarr

    I don't understand where you're coming from on the recent polls, in that if the pollsters wanted to skew the results toward McCain, they could make the party splits whatever they wanted. Also, these folks are professionals, I know some of them (a bit), and I really have no reason to doubt their ethics.

    Verified voting in Ohio is still pretty rickety, but the paper trails do give some grounds for optimism. Most Florida voters will vote on paper, but the rules for using that paper are sketchy. There's a lot of work left to do, no doubt. I don't regard these systems as "what stealing an election would look like," but they certainly leave some doors open.

    •  I don't mean to imply intention in the polling. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HudsonValleyMark

      I don't think they intentionally skewed their samples, either.  Like you say they are professionals and they have a reputation to keep up.  That said, the major media polls do trumpet these surprising numbers, and bury the partisan ID numbers (which are a HUGE part of the story) deep in the article, if they mention it at all.  And to me, that is the effect of a subtle bias towards marketing your results as meaningful and exciting, and/or trying to make the race look close because that makes the story better.  It's not an explicit desire to set things up for McCain but it has that effect.

      The diary is intended as an examination of the hypothetical.  Like you say, there needen't be intention to steal the election buried in the campaign strategy or the polling results.  My point is that it does, as you say, leave the door open.

      •  fair enough... (0+ / 0-)

        I don't think we know how huge a part of the story the partisan ID numbers are. Could be that a bunch of R-leaning indies are feeling Republican this week. Regardless, the folks who write up media polls do tend to hype the results, and they do have some stake the horse race. (I guess we'd be grateful if McCain had the inside track.)

        I just finished interacting with someone who seems to divide the world into 'people who know Kerry won' and 'people in denial about election fraud,' so I especially appreciated this nuanced approach.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site