What if the primaries are rigged? How would we know?

I remember being so surprised that Kerry rose so fast to the top when he was not very popular. If everyone hates Hillary, and no one I know says they would vote for her, why is she the front runner? Could the polls be faked too? Just wondering why she has the high numbers when no one likes her.

:rofl:

We'll all have to go through the rigged election, MSM conspiracy, and corporate sabatoging of all the candidates that didn't win. Looking forward to it in a way, just for the humor.

When nearly everyone on this board - people who hang out with Democrats, allegedly - says they know of no one - or very few - people who are "for" HRC, yet she still keeps cranking up in the polls.

I realize *I* might be an anomally - maybe there really is no one in my immediate sphere of influence who likes Hillary Clinton, but when I couple that with the folks on here by at 10-to-1 margin who ALSO don't know of any HRC fans, then I have to wonder.

Yes, I know some people here know some and a few people here know many people who support her, but the vast majority say we don't.

Something's fishy.

Dragongentleman and I were talking with a young African American woman last year and the conversation turned to the next president. She said she hoped Hillary would win. We mentioned that our senator, Russ Feingold, was also thinking of running and we liked him a lot more than Hillary. She had never heard of Russ Feingold (her own senator), but a few sentences about him from us convinced her to support him. From this experience I take the proposition that Hillary's support is wide but not very deep, and it may well melt away when people hear more about the other candidates. (This of course does not apply to all the politicians who are jumping on her bandwagon for their own purposes, but they have only one vote in a primary state, like the rest of us.)

for one, I suspect DU runs a little to the left of the general run of Democrats; and for another, people on a political forum are liklier to be better informed than the general public, so it makes sense that there would be less support for Hillary here than in general.

OTOH, other than a few pro-Hillary posters here who say EVERYONE they know loves Hillary, I also don't see any strong support. I've yet to see a Hillary bumpersticker. My sister and her partner and their friends don't support her. My friends don't. I don't talk politics at work much, so that's an unknown for me, but my anti-Bush feelings are well known and I've not had any co-workers approach me talking up Hillary.

So where's it coming from?

why wouldn't the primaries be rigged?

The Machine will pick our candidate.

Clinton, Obama and Edwards are getting all the speaking time in the debates, and Clinton seems to be given all the softball questions, and given all the opportunities to triangulate.

Kucinich is being ignored, and when he can't be ignored, he's getting smeared, portrayed as a goofball or loonie or moonbat.

Same thing happens on the Republican side - they're only paying attention to Romney, Giuliani and (until recently,) McCain. The only half-way respectable one (even though I sharply disagree with him,) Ron Paul is himself being ignored, smeared and stomped into the ground.

I predict that Romney will become the Republican nominee, because as Scott Adams put it, he's tall and he has executive-style hair, which is turning silver.

government, Skull and Bones, that have already chosen our next president. I have read opinions to this effect.

A lot of support for Huckabee.

nt

* What if the primaries are rigged? How would we know?

you'll know when your candidate loses.

* My candidate is not even in the race yet.

perhaps because it is fixed? hmm...

:rofl:

:rofl:

There is always the fear that the elections are not fair (nothing new)

right-wing media has hrc as a shoe-in.

Your petty obsessions with the minutiae of "democracy" are so 1999. :sarcasm:

Edit for serious reply to the question:

Many people seem to be confusing "favorable" and "unfavorable" ratings with something that might predict how people vote. Not necessarily so. You may not like someone so much, but think they would be a strong candidate or president.

Conversely, someone who has good favorability ratings but poorer polling ratings might just mean that people think, "yeah, nice enough guy, but he's not going to be a strong candidate or president."

I don't think these favorability things are as significant as people are thinking. (I'm recalling a particularly tyrannical boss my husband once had, whom everyone disliked pretty much. Mr. frazzled used to say--'you know what's the MOST infuriating thing about X: he's always right." This was someone with poor favorables, but who commanded a lot of respect.)

Dennis Kuchinich doesn't win you know it's rigged.

More important than ever.

You can't rig those.

"Welcome, my son
Welcome to the machine
What did you dream?
It's allright, we told you what to dream..."

-- Pink Floyd

And as the immortal Bill Hicks once said:

"America!
You are free
To do as we tell you
You are free
To do as we tell you."

Go back to sleep, America. We'll wake you when the primary is over and tell you who your two false choices for President will be.

on extremely insecure and insider hackable voting machines, run on 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, with virtually no audit/recount controls.

This fascist coup occurred very fast, and under the radar of the public, during the 2002 to 2004 period, following passage of the "Help America Vote Act" (e-voting--in the same month as the Iraq War Resolution--October 2002--and closely related to it), which provided a $3.9 billion e-voting boondoggle which, along with unregulated lobbying by the election theft industry, corrupted many election officials, state legislators and Congress critters.

How would you know if the primaries were rigged? You can't know. That's the PURPOSE of "trade secret" vote counting.

There are inferential evidences that you can put together to make an educated guess as to whether an election was rigged or not. But one of those tools--the exit polls--has now gone south. On the night of 11/2/04, the exit poll consortium that had been put together by the war profiteering corporate news monopolies DOCTORED the exit polls (Kerry won, by 3%) to force them to FIT the results of Diebold/ES&S's "trade secret" formulae (Bush 'won'). You may remember, Kerry was winning all day. Everybody thought he HAD won. Then it all changed. Some alert techies caught the REAL exit polls and took screen shots, however, and word got out that the final exit polls had been altered. The upshot was that the techies and election fraud activists had enough of a sample of the REAL exit to polls to establish that Bush could not have won. There was no last-minute "surge" of voters for Bush that turned the tide. Numerically, it was impossible. And it didn't make any kind of sense.*

When you put this information together with OTHER information--for instance, that the Democratic grass roots blew the Bushites away in new voter registration, nearly 60/40, in 2004--and you know the above facts about the vote 'counting' system (almost entirely non-transparent--30% of it unauditable, unrecountable--no paper trail at all--and the rest extremely poorly audited on highly insecure machines), you can reach a pretty solid conclusion that the 2004 election was stolen. And that's not even to get into the blatant fraud and vote suppression in Ohio.

I've read EVERYTHING on this subject, and that's the conclusion that I have come to. It was stolen--mainly by the voting machines, with Ohio as EXTRA insurance of a Bush win.

The Edison-Mitofky polling firm--which had been hired by the corporate news monopolies to do the exit polls--was so chagrined that its real exit poll results got out over the internet, and by the controversy that followed, that they have promised NEVER to let the public get its hands on their real exit polls again.

So, we will not have exit polls next year, as a check on voting machine fraud--unless some truly patriotic firm or firms comes forward to take it on. We will have Edison-Mitofsky-doctored exit polls*, or none at all. The Democratic Party SHOULD BE doing comprehensive exit polling, and I've suggested this a number of times, but I have seen no indication that they are going to.

I have little doubt that opinion polls are manipulated to create the build-up narrative to fascist victories. I don't think it's always done--and possibly just in the presidential or other big-stakes races (important Senate or governor positions). But I'm pretty sure it was done in 2004. My reason is that the opinions of the American people on the issues--the issue/policy polls, as opposed to polls on candidates--showed a consistent and huge disagreement with Bush on all major issues, starting way before the 2004 election (with 56% of the American people opposed to the Iraq War in Feb. '03), and continuing in 2004 (for instance, 63% opposed to torture "under any circumstances"--May '04--with even bigger disagreements on Social Security, the deficit and other issues). This did not jibe with the 50/50 race that the Kerry/Bush polls seemed to show leading up to the election.

Rule of thumb for trusting polls: The amount of ink they get. If the war profiteering corporate news monopolies ignore some poll results (give them little coverage or comment)--as they did on the significant (56%!) early opposition to the war--you can probably bet that the poll was fairly honest. And, on the other hand, if they make a big deal out of some number (like Hillary's numbers, for instance), be suspicious.

I've been observing the corporate news monopolies create "frontrunner" candidacies for many years. I saw them do it with Reagan. I saw them do it with Bill Clinton. I saw them do it with Schwarzenegger. I see them doing it with Hillary. I remember very clearly that Bill Clinton went onto the cover of Time magazine BEFORE the primaries. He was their made man before we even had a chance to vote. Bill has a lot of personal charisma, and with the moneyed Democrats (the DLC) behind him, he might have won the nomination anyway. But I was really offended that he was given such a advantage--a Time mag cover--when he was still a nobody (as to presidential politics). Similarly, Schwarzenegger was given the full treatment. In that case, we had a very short, six week campaign period, and 125 candidates on that very weird Recall ballot. Schwarzenegger--a well known actor, who didn't need any publicity--was gifted with millions of dollars of free publicity on the Larry King Show, on the cover of Time, and many other venues, during the campaign period leading up to the actual voting.

Hillary is a made woman. She is the corporate predators' and war profiteers' pick. And we shall see if, 1) the American people are able to see through it (--they HAVE seen through the war propaganda! 70% opposed to the war and wanting it ended! So I'm hopeful), and 2) if the American people, and voters in individual states, are able to outvote the machines, or have managed to achieve a transparent--or even somewhat transparent--vote counting process in their states and localities, prior to the primaries (--less hopeful; but the election reform movement IS starting to snowball--I think California will be transparent; and some others transparent or improved--New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Oregon, New Mexico, Vermont, New Hampshire, Florida--I won't go into the whole list, and it's hard to keep track, but it will be a mixed picture as to reliable, verifiable results).

One VERY GOOD thing: Voters are much MUCH more aware of the rigged machines than they were in 2004. They've been trying various strategies to get around the rigged electronics and get their votes counted. One is to vote by Absentee Ballot. While this does not guarantee a counted vote (many are just scanned right into the rigged electronics), it is a sign of a big grass roots revolt and great unhappiness. There has been a dramatic increase in AB voting over the last several elections. (About 30 states permit it.) Voters are more alert, more wary, more disgusted and better informed in every way than they have ever been in my lifetime.

The unhappiness of the American people--which has reached epic proportions--may be what Hillary's candidacy is about. The fascists really cannot rig it for another Republican. They would have open revolt on their hands. So they're going with a Republican that has a 'D' by her name. I won't go into her policies here, but they are so close to Bush's as to be almost indistinguishable. And she will come in with the cache of "newness" and be able to accomplish things--such as a military Draft--that Bush cannot do. She is anti-union, pro-"free trade," pro-rich, pro-corporate welfare--a thorough-going Corporatist. She will NOT disavow any of Bush's unconstitutional assertions of power, and will use them against US, if we rebel against a Draft, or against global corporate predator rule, or if there is an economic meltdown. And I think that she will start a war with Iran (it needs more prep as to foreign policy, if it is not to escalate out of control into WW III).

Bleak, I know. We have suffered a fascist coup. Fascism, as you may know, is the cementing of the state with corporate business interests. That is what has occurred. Bush/Cheney's nazism may be a distraction from this more serious, long term condition. The corporate predators now have DIRECT control over election results. They don't even need to bother with the Time magazine gambit any more, except to create a feasible narrative for their choices.

But I still feel much hope. Why? Because 70% of the American people are opposed to the war and want it ended. 70%! And a significant majority--56%--saw through it from the beginning. The American people have shown an amazing resistance to the relentless, 24/7 warmongering and fascist propaganda that they have been subjected to. There is a great deal of grass roots organization being done--on election reform and many other issues. We may not be able to regain control of our federal government, in the near future, but we are building strength, not losing it. We could conceivably outvote the machines next year, especially if we got a shot of adrenalin, such as Gore entering the race. We outvoted the machines in some cases in 2006. (--but with overall corporate control of election outcomes, they can afford to let us win a few, for appearances' sake, and keep the overall balance in Congress tilted toward fascist policy; and of course "trade secret" control of the vote count is ADDED to the influence of money, on who can run and who can win).

The corporate predators will try to get a lot done--as to consolidating their enormous gains under Bush--in the "honeymoon" period of a Hillary regime. But WE should try to get a lot done during that period as well--Priority #1: Transparent elections. We have the power. We are the majority. The American people are overwhelmingly peace-minded and justice-minded. Turn off the utter crap that the corporate news monopolies shove at you--including the insidious disinformation that the country has gone rightwing (it hasn't)--and get active (if you are not already) in the long term battle for our democracy.

It may be that a really good president could not survive in office. I suffered through those terrible five years in which John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King were all assassinated. Maybe there is NO WAY we can ever have a true representative of the people in the White House ever again--or at least until there is nothing more here to loot. Well, so we work on Congress, to try to check presidential power and regain some corporate accountability. Our democracy doesn't live or die on the merits of one person. It belongs to all of us. It IS us. We need to live it every day. And we need to focus each other on the main issue--restoring the power of the people, which we exercise through our vote.

-------------

One other thought on Hillary: I think there is a big segment of women voters, who haven't thought things through very well, and kind of kneejerk support Hillary, at this point, because they feel that a woman will be most protective of women's rights. But this may not be true, in fact--and when you consider the MANY ways that women are oppressed--especially economically--it may not be true at all. A net gain on the right to an abortion, but you lose your house to criminal banking practices, or lose your job to outsourcing, or lose family members to a corporate resource war in the Middle East. This may account for some portion of Hillary's numbers--women who are concerned about the right to an abortion, access to contraception and other such rights, but have not yet considered how all the OTHER policies of the war profiteers and the corporate predators harm them, and severely curtail their choices. (Anybody have a male/female opinion poll breakdown on Hillary?)

Edison-Mitofsky claims that they "weight" the exit polls "scientifically"--that is, they change the raw results to reflect the demographics of a particular election. But in no country in the world do exit pollsters CONFORM the exit poll numbers TO the official election results in the distorted and impossible ways that E/M did at the end of the day on 11/3/04. See www.truthisall.net for an analysis of this (how the exit polls show that Bush COULD NOT have won). Elsewhere in the world, exit polls are used as a CHECK on election fraud, not as a confirmation of fraudulent results.

In summary, the war profiteering corporate news monopolies have not only completely failed to inform the public about "trade secret" vote counting (a fraudulent election SYSTEM), they helped to cover up Bush/Cheney's fraudulent 'win' and have deprived us of a major tool for verifying election results in a highly non-transparent system. That we cannot trust ANY election result, that we cannot KNOW what the outcome really is, is THEIR fault. As our system was designed, a free press was to be our last bastion against a corrupted political system and consequent tyranny. They have utterly failed us, on THE most important power that we, the people, have against tyrants: honest elections.

We have many reasons to loathe the corporate news monopolies. This is the main one, in my opinion.

The polls DID show a Kerry increase (in Iowa) before the caucus. Part was that Dean imploded - the debate when he whined that he did did not want to be a pin cushion hurt, as did Dean being caught on tape yelling at a 70ish heckler to "SIT DOWN". He and Gephardt also hurt each other in their fight, where each accused the other of lying about their record.

In addition, a few weeks before the caucus, there was the reunion of Kerry and Rassman, the man he saved in Vietnam. Kerry's clearly sentimental reaction and his saying "anybody would have done it" from a really special campaign occurance to the best, most compelling single event I ever saw - and I've favored a candidate since I was 10 and really wanted JFK to win. Dean was unfortunate that that played back to back with his yelling at the heckler as they happened the same day - near the time many people made up their minds. Kerry also had an excellent ad (that I only saw on the internet) that had his crew and Vanessa speaking for him. In January, Kerry also had many MA people - including many firefighters and veterans who took their vacation and spent a few weeks in Iowa telling personal stories about their Senator. They were very effective. Here's a link, you might want to see of a video put together in 2004 that tells the story of Kerry's connection to the Worcester firefighters. Seeing it might give you an idea why The Firefighter's Union endorsed him early in 2003 and stayed with him even when he was tied with Sharpton.
http://www.kerryvision.net/2007/08/jk_the_fire_fighters.html#more

As Iowa was a CAUCUS it was not rigged. Iowa gave Kerry momentum - as winning always does for anyone. The next state was NH. A state that already knew Kerry and jumped on the band wagon.

So, for most people who were not political junkies - what the 3 most compelling political January stories were the reunion, and 2 Kerry wins. (The Dean scream was the only other big story I know of.) Is it any surprise that given this, Kerry's numbers blew up between early January and first day of February?

and that it is so difficult to unseat an incumbent,
how could it not be rigged?

registered and current. This time around you may need to have your driver lic address match you voting address. 50 states and 50 different sets of rules. Check now and don't wait until primary day.

I remember all the dog ate my voter reg stories after the last primary. Some of the most outspoken posters had problems(or excuses) for missing the primary.