What if they are rigging the primary elections?

I have heard lots of discussion regarding the general elections being fixed which is a definite possibility.

However, it just occurred to me - what if they are rigging the primaries? The primaries get VERY little attention - especially in non-presidential years. (like say 2002, 2006)

Is it possible they are rigging primaries so that weaker democratic candidates are chosen? It would seem to me that if they targeted a primary it would be easier than a general election as so few people are paying attention.

I mean before and just as the primary was starting it seemed that Dean was the darling of the Democratic party PTBs. He seemed to be getting warm endorsements from everyone who was anyone in the party. Then he just seemed not to be able to garner the votes that such support would give him.

cheney's choice, he came out of fuckin nowhere in the primarys against a general and decorated war hero, Gen. Clark and some sauseage guy, jimmy dean or something, and about 10 other people, and he just so happened to have Karl Rove's Wet-dream of a past, and those swift boat vet liars cam out of the woodwork pretty quickly

Or the Kerry people will be all over you.

I just got slammed in another thread for having posted my thoughts on Kerry rolling over on 11/3.

i supported (donated too) kerry because he was the man sent up to beat bush, and i'm faily sure he did (but, diebold, blackwell)

AND I'M ALL OVER YOU!!! RAAAUUURRGGHH!!

:-)

Seriously, though. I didn't think Kerry's past was so checkered - I just think Rove-hole & co. have a real good knack of twisting ANYTHING - no matter how innocuous, or even honorable into a black mark. They are lying shit-bags. Far more controversial men than Kerry have gone on to be elected president, but they didn't have Rat Fucker working against them.

Speaking of wet dreams and sausage, though, yeah, I like Kerry.

Why?

1. He rolled over on election day absent many, many irregularities...remember: Edwards wanted to fight and the attorneys had evidence.

2. Belonged to the same "drink blood from the skull of geronimo" Yale frat as **

3. Ran an atrocious campaign when it mattered most (August, Sept., Oct.)

4. Never responded to the Swift Boat f**ckers until after the story had settled into the mainstream. Then there was no effective way to refute the story.

5. Told the convention speakers to pull their punches, all the while knowing the Repubs would roast him. Did he really think they'd play nice? WTF?

6. Offered archaic and lame-ass responses to legitimate questions about his voting record.

7. Pulled his punches in the second and third debates.

8. Failed to attack ** on the one thing that flustered him the most during the first debate: the HW comparison.

9. Broke his pre-election promise to "count every vote and ensure that every vote counts".

10. Ended the campaign with millions in the bank.

11. Failed to combat ** in a number of swing states where he might have stood a chance had he actually visited them more than a few times in the home stretch (Iowa, Missouri/Missourah, etc.)

12. Did not have the balls to address gay marriage adequately.

I could go on and on (especially about 9/11, Iraq, etc.) but you get the "idear".

he was skull and bones too! ;-)

I expect plenty of people to come in and agree with your theory, though. But I don't think anyone's compared exit polls and final results as I see people do with the general election.

Even a caucus... For all we know they have sent in republican moles to both our caucuses and primaries.

My dad, for instance, changed his registration to Republican to go vote for Pat Buchanan in 1992 and put them at a disadvantage.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

As others have said... It is EXTREMELY odd that Dean and Clark crashed and burned on day one when EVERYTHING prior to that suggested they would do very well.

and Clark entered the race too late.

There are no black helicopters.

ever 15 minutes for days, which killed him in the primaries.
I love Howard Dean.

I like Clark, too. I liked pretty much all of them, except for Holy Joe. And the scream was definitely used by the MSM as a bludgeon. But I remember following the primaries pretty closely, both here and at Kos, and the analysis from the real political watchers was that Dean had a weak ground element in the primaries. If it was stronger, he may have been able to overcome the microphone unfortunate-ness.

I hate tinfoil posts like this. The OP doesn't even define who the 'They' is. DNC honchos? Republicans? The Illuminati?

Anyhow I wouldn't know about his ground game, I was ragingly not seeing things objectively and 100% sure he was going to win and we were going to take America back. Don't know how many DVDs I gave away or how many dollars at bat.
Love the man.
But you may be right, I sure wouldn't know.

:eyes:

It's not tin foil, you just want to make it such. Of course the republicans.

You have absolutely no evidence, just some lame theory, and you act like it's fact. It'd be sad if it wasn't so funny.

And a Republican - former assistant to Bob Dole - has said that he thinks the MSM cost Dean the election. http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050123-100614-1880r.htm

Black helicopters aren't necessary when the media does the job instead. But assuming that Dean legitimately lost because his game wasn't up to par is kind of a leap in logic. The same media telling you Dean legitimately lost are the ones who shaped exactly that outcome.

didn't come from the MSM, but from Kos and similar non-MSM, liberal folks.

And I'll pass on reading the Moonie Times, thanks. Interesting that you say not to trust the MSM on one hand, but offer some right-wing media as evidence.

nt

Don't suggest other posters are just buying MSM spin when, in fact, the poster is basing his comments on non-MSM sources.

I was a Dean supporter and I'll even say this. Our experience during that period is too informative to grassroots campaigns to dismiss. A few things happened over two weeks to sink him.

I hope you are aware most of those "polls" you refer to were from the MSM, and thus Rove produced. In 2002 and 2004 Rove was working the polls prior to the election. That much was obvious to anyone who wasn't totally naive.

It would have discouraged a lot of people if Dean had numbers like 10% back in November or December.

prior to that. The entire run up to the election was filled with rovian polls. Do you not remember them?

"It would have discouraged a lot of people if Dean had numbers like 10% back in November or December"

I doubt it. Dean did not get his support from poll numbers. He got it from being a candidate that had legitimate support.

From what I understand Dean's people in Iowa didn't do so well and that is why he didn't do well.

I don't think you can rig the primaries. Why the hell would they care about our primaries when they can rig the actual election and win more seats? All they do is smear the person no matter who it was. I watched the Iowa Cacus event they had (it's in the CSPAN archive)and they showed who was where in the polls and Kerry was already winning.

...something they've been doing since the 2000 elections.

but what about 2002 when a backlash should have occured? That's hundreds of elections throughout the 50 states.... VERY difficult to effectively monitor them all.

...when everyone's behind the president after a terror attack. Even I thought he was pretty much OK up until about January 2003.

then you don't have to bother stealing the general election.

Why would they give a fuck about it? Sure they're pumping up Hillary now for some reason but I don't remember them worrying about it before then. They knew they would win this election with Diebold. They tested it out in Georgia's 2002 election so they knew it was in the bank. I'm sure Rove could give a fuck about our primaries.

And it has been discussed at length.

In presidentials the guy with the most money and the best corporate and party connections wins the primaries. Always. No need for vote-rigging, though maybe that's also done.

From 1976 until 2000, the winning nominee of the party out of power in each case collected twice as much cash before and during the primary campaigns as all of his opponents combined (that applies to Carter, Reagan, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton and, obviously, Bush Jr., who had a ratio closer to 10:1)

In 2004 Dean broke the mold by tapping small-change contributions from the Internet, and for a time could actually outspend what was originally supposed to be the Kerry juggernaut.

But he challenged the Democratic leadership and its self-appointed monitors at the DLC, said he'd break up the media conglomerates, and actually raised the prospect of Bush foreknowledge of 9/11.

Two weeks of concerted sabotage by a coalition of the Dean-threatened stooping to the total canard of "the scream" (which never happened, it was an editing trick) did the trick.

If that hadn't worked, there was always the bullet, which did for RFK.

why wasn't Kerry popular in the very beginning? He had more money then anybody else in the primaries but he started out in the beginning a nobody and did campaigning and got people on board.

From 1976 to 2000 the nominee for the party out-of-power just happened to be the guy who throughout the primary season raised at least twice as much cash as all of the opponents combined. (He usually also just happened to be the richest individual running.)

I take that as an indicator of corporate interest in each of these campaigns. You can take it however you like.

In 2004 the same position of being the guy with at least twice as much to spend as everyone else combined would have been held by Kerry throughout, but Dean briefly broke the paradigm by being the first to make use of an Internet-based fundraising model dependant on thousands of small contributions (2/3 at $75 or less), which financed a competitive campaign and clearly pissed off the usual powerbrokers at DNC and DLC (in their own words).

This situation was "corrected" within a two-week span around "The Scream" - whatever you may think the background was.

"suggestions" of by party leaders on who to vote for.

This is not rigging in the sense I think you mean it. It is more manipulation.

has had corruption in their government. From President to local library board, power addicts and junkies will do whatever they have to do (lie, steal, bribe) to get their fix.

At the local level, bribes get people appointed judges, behind the scenes manipulation get you onto the community board if you're in the country club...or excluded if not...

If we were to describe what happens in our political system here but use ANY other country's name...no one would blink twice when we imply corruption at every level. But when we slap on that made in the USA label, suddenly our ego comes to the defense of our system. Sadly, it's so much self deception.

Governments have always called out the worst of people...which is why our founders had some nifty ideas...one, to balance those powers in order to slow and stem the abuse of any one part....and transparency...that free press and speech thing.

I'd include primaries in all of this of course. Otherwise we're forgetting the history of politics (that we know about) in places like Chicago and Lousiana...nothing new here. At any level.

But we help to keep out the mold when we're able to shine a light on it. Now how we do that is the real question.

I've always that result was bullshit and I helped out a little on McBride's campaign.

What a mistake that was. He could barely speak during the "debates" it was embarrassing.

it going down.

see just what people went here and there when they broke up into seperate meetings, and when they phoned in the count I wondered who really was on the other end of the phone and if the count was recorded correctly. and who counted it after that?

as I was watching (c-span I think) I could see it happening, and I was speaking out loud to myself - 'this is rigged'

at that jeb rigged for reno to lose

Example, Kerry wiped the floor in Iowa, a caucus. No machines to rig.

Anyone that's been heavily involved in the BBV movement WATCHED it happen, gathered the data, and showed what went wrong.

The primaries are where "they" (owners of the voting machine companies, who are in bed with the owners of other large corporations, and those who make up the military/industrial complex, who collectively own the government and the media) cull out candidates that might challenge the powers that most NEED to be challenged.

Having said that; even though I didn't like Kerry OR Edwards at the beginning of the primaries, I grew to LOVE him and Edwards as a team, and supported them with shoe-leather and funds. In fact, I STILL like them.

I like some other powerful Dems, as well (Dean, Clark, Kucinich, Boxer, Conyers, McKinney, Byrd, etc), but for the 2004 election, we had a great team that would have been very, very good in the White House.

If not for the damned computerized vote counting machines, they'd be IN the white house today.

AND I'LL NEVER NEVER GET OVER IT!!

If masses of people don't get more active in the next couple of months, we're going to have the VERY SAME PROBLEM in 2006... the votes are still counted in secret, by corporations that have a vested interest in who wins. Our Democracy has been "privatized", and hijacked.

:kick::kick::kick:

You write"No doubt WHATSOEVER it happens in the primaries." And yet you give no evidence. How can there be no doubt without conclusive evidence?

Who? What? When? Where? Why?

Contrary to your post - I have doubts.