Does any of this sound familiar?

[SamSpade]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/06/AR2006070600185.html

I'm guessing some of y'all have been following the election in Mexico.

I'm however, amused that the more conservative candidate won, and the defeated leftist is contesting the results (which he was fine with, when early tallies suggested a possible WIN for him) and encouraging people to take to the streets in protest, for this "fraud".

The article goes on to say that the election may well end up in court.

I'm also amused by the fact that Obrador, the leftist candidate, initially sought the tallies from the districts that heavily favored him, so as to suggest that he really HAD been winning, and only by means of fraud could it have been successfully "taken" from him (similar to Kerry's whining regarding early exit polls and Gore's campaign desiring repreated recounts only in counties that were heavily Democratic).

Can't people just lose, gracefully? Can't he just accept that more people voted for Calderon? It was a three-way race, and Calderon didn't even get the majority - just, the most. Why is that so hard to believe?

It just reminds me of the left in this country - when they lose, it must be either fraud or stupid voters, because it's so clear that their man is the only intelligent choice. It's the frustration I have also with the left, because it's never a matter of a difference of opinion - there's the right one - mine - and yours, which is wrong - and since it is wrong, it doesn't merit freedom of speech.

 

[SamSpade]

It just keeps getting better

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5167420.stm
Is there something about being on the left that just cannot accept losing an election gracefully?

The only person from the right that I can recall in recent memory was Ellen Saurbrey, who complained that the governor's election was fraudulent - but it was dropped.

Why can't people just accept defeat? There are always irregularities. It's not for nothing Al Capone coined the term "vote early, vote often". It happens.

 

[Larry Gude]

Sam...

...a few reporters nosed around Chicago after the 1960 US presidential election having sniffed the scent of voting fraud with reports of irregularities including polls closing late and allegations of dead people and others voting early and often.

Their sniffing was brief as it wasn't long before the semi brave handful understood that the only digging that would happen on that story was that of their own graves.

St. Louis in 2000, same allegations and there was evidence to Saurbreys complaints. That lady in the GOP controlled district in California is on tape telling illigals they can get away with voting.

Cheating happens and it's known.

Now, one might think that in a nation full of investigative 'journalists' including the all powerful Dan Rather who is more than happy to use forgeries to make his stories, that someone, sometime would do an in depth story on it even if it's just old ones from the past, like 1960, if only for historical reasons.

I have no doubt cheating goes on on all sides but I also suspect that the vast majority of it occurs in our cities where people live close together and which means power can most readily be seen and exercised. Call it coercion. Call it willing fraud, it's still cheating.

Back to the people we rely on to reveal the truth, journalists. You suppose they'd pass up a story involving Republican poll cheating? If it meant exposing the massive fraud in cities, Democratic cities, they may well let that dog lie.

Know why Bush didn't concede when Rather declared Al Gore the winner in Florida? Because they knew that they'd reached their numbers in GOP districts projected as necessary to win Florida given their assumptions of what should come from Democratic districts which were based on Clinton's two wins.

Know why it was close in Florida? Because districts that had gone Clinton by 100,000 votes ended up going like 200,000 for Gore. Now, you can call me suspicious but, why would districts that loved Clinton but only had 60-65% turnout suddenly turn out in the 85-90% range, especially when the national average was more like 55%?

Gore rescinded his concession because his people told him that they'd reached THEIR numbers of what needed to happen to win the state.

Did everyone cheat? Just one side? One more than the other?

I'd be tickled pink if some bunch of reporters endeavored to quit #####ing about the electoral college and started caring about the sanctity of the votes we have...and the honesty of same.

Now, just imagine how things are done in Mexico if they are kinda fishy here?

 

[itsbob]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/06/AR2006070600185.html

I'm guessing some of y'all have been following the election in Mexico.

I'm however, amused that the more conservative candidate won, and the defeated leftist is contesting the results (which he was fine with, when early tallies suggested a possible WIN for him) and encouraging people to take to the streets in protest, for this "fraud".

The article goes on to say that the election may well end up in court.

I'm also amused by the fact that Obrador, the leftist candidate, initially sought the tallies from the districts that heavily favored him, so as to suggest that he really HAD been winning, and only by means of fraud could it have been successfully "taken" from him (similar to Kerry's whining regarding early exit polls and Gore's campaign desiring repreated recounts only in counties that were heavily Democratic).

Can't people just lose, gracefully? Can't he just accept that more people voted for Calderon? It was a three-way race, and Calderon didn't even get the majority - just, the most. Why is that so hard to believe?

It just reminds me of the left in this country - when they lose, it must be either fraud or stupid voters, because it's so clear that their man is the only intelligent choice. It's the frustration I have also with the left, because it's never a matter of a difference of opinion - there's the right one - mine - and yours, which is wrong - and since it is wrong, it doesn't merit freedom of speech.

No, because these people don't care about their country or their countrymen, all they care about is winning, and power an money that comes with winning.

They could careless if it ends in violence and riots in the streets.