Whether or not Clinton had anything to do with election fraud (or would ever do so at all) is inconsequential, once Fox and the rest get the scent of a spectacular story --even one with an indeterminate conclusion. This is just the sort of smart tactic that has emerged from the Rove machine for a long time. Because it relies on an astute instinct for voter psychology and media weaknesses, it's powerful.
Assume for a moment that the statistical case that got Mig's attention and pushed him and Drew into action can be made solid, and explained in a way that the media can sell.
How to get them to do it?
I think this is the great obstacle, and an almost insurmountable one perhaps.
I suggest that, rather than changing your vote, a far better tactic would be to get on the phone, get on the net, get in your car and show up at the door of EVERY SIGNIFICANT PLAYER IN THE GAME.
The media are going to decide this.
They can and will ignore Harry Hursti. God knows they did before, for the most part.
drive them crazy. Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
On second thoughts, the statistical case may not be that relevant to the point I was making. By the standards of Love Story, Swiftboats, or Saddam's WMDs, the fact that the polls showed Obama winning, while Clinton won in the end is already strong evidence of fraud. That's what we're up against. Like the rest of you, I made the mistake of assuming that facts are what matter here.
On the other hand, I do vaguely remember similar claims being made about her NY Senate victory, so it's just possible that this is yet another made-up scandal that has already been captured by current opinion polls. I would still feel more comfortable, though, if her campaign was doing something to respond to it.
I definitely would like to contact her campaign, but I'm trying to think of the best way to do so without being immediately dismissed as yet another person complaining about fraud. Anybody got suggestions for the best way to go about it?
I meant to introduce myself at the end of my previous, first, post, but hit the "Post" button prematurely. As usual, I've been lurking for quite a while, etc.etc. There was no way for you to know, but I live in Italy now, making showing up at doors and so on rather difficult (I know that "get in your car" is meant metaphorically, but I can't resist the opportunity of bragging that I haven't owned, or even driven, a car for over a decade).
The primary that I'll be voting in will be for delegates for Democrats Abroad. I just learnt that the Italian vote will be on Super Tuesday, so I won't be able to vote in person, and will have to chose between voting by absentee ballot, or over the internet. I'm considering the latter just for the experience, but I am rather dubious about how it will work in practice.
For me, the point is that computers are not the appropriate technology to count votes. There is a reason why right after the election has closed, the ballot box is emptied in front of witnesses from all competing (as well as other interested parties) factions and counted. The system is designed to eliminate the need for trust.
A computer makes the entire process one of trust - after we have so carefully eliminated the need for trust originally. Why bother watching the election if you can't watch the designing of the computer program that counts the ballots?
aspiring to genteel poverty
