yeah but you are buying into the whole "does not want to run against
mvd database = wrong somehow." Purging the voter rolls two weeks
before an election doesn't give a lot of time for legitimate voters to
find out they are affected and deal with the issue, and that may be
what that is about. I don'
I don't get San Diego, and given the relatively low numbers, I would guess
it's more carelessness, etc. than anything.
Ohio, on the other hand, could once again determine the election. The
current system is especially egregious because you can register and vote at
the same time, making it very eas
I know that too which makes it seem weird. You *know* that republicans
in San Diego are going to challenge Acorn. If they think that Acorn is
registering people likely to vote Democrat, they have a motive to make
sure that every single registration is more than solid and potentially
to discourage t
San Diego is solidly Republican, but California is solidly Democratic
overall. What that means, I have no idea.
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Judah wrote:
Regardless of Ohio though, what is the rationale for places like
> California? If they concentrated on a couple states like Ohio and
> re
I've been saying that Democrats stand a chance to win this year
because elections in Ohio are run by a Democrat this year not a
Republican. Ah, maybe she learned a thing or two from Ken Blackwell?
Seriously though, I hope that gets resolved quickly. I really don't
want another voting debacle, it i
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 8:41 PM, Judah wrote:
>
> As for number 3, I don't know. I just don't see it. From everything
> I've read, the voter registration systems are pretty good. You'd have
> to have at least a couple thousand votes in key states that you expect
> to be close (like Ohio and Florid
you really should do domethng about your reading skills. I say this as
a homeschooling parent.
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:18 PM, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Did you just call me good lord?
>
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 9:15 PM, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> ::shrug:: is that supposed to hu
Did you just call me good lord?
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 9:15 PM, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ::shrug:: is that supposed to hurt my feelings? good lord.
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic r
::shrug:: is that supposed to hurt my feelings? good lord.
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:10 PM, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's sad.
> I mean to think you home-schooled and all:)
>
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 8:51 PM, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> true... I have a bunch of emails right now
That's sad.
I mean to think you home-schooled and all:)
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 8:51 PM, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> true... I have a bunch of emails right now saying don't take the lead
> for granted. I dunno... just doesn make sense to me. But neither does
> most of what Sam says.
>
~
true... I have a bunch of emails right now saying don't take the lead
for granted. I dunno... just doesn make sense to me. But neither does
most of what Sam says.
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 9:41 PM, Judah McAuley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeah, I'm not quite getting 2 or 3 either. I've thought abo
Yeah, I'm not quite getting 2 or 3 either. I've thought about them.
But folks on the left are getting inundated with emails about making
sure there is no complacency. I think that an 8 point lead that is
really 2 because 6 points is registration fraud would be bad for the
leading campaign. You saw
ok let's see...
elections officials in cuyahohga county ohio were convicted of rigging
the vote in 2004 (in the state that provided the decisive electoral
votes for Bush)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/19/AR2007011900429.html?nav=hcmodule
and what we are worried abo
::eyeroll:: wouldn't it be as likely (or more) to cause democrats to
stay home since their guy supposedly has a lead?
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Jeff Garza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The answer was likely already posited by Judah. It's the polls... When you
> factor in "likely voters" us
> RoMunn wrote:
> Here come the G-men:
>
This sounds so ... familiar ...
Where have I heard about DOJ-rules violations - by the DOJ - just
before an election before?
H. I've got it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Schlozman#ACORN_voter_registration_prosecutions
Just five days before
Actual vote fraud in Ohio uncovered by student journalists:
http://www.palestra.net/videos/play/17241
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Jeff wrote:
> The answer was likely already posited by Judah. It's the polls... When
> you
> factor in "likely voters" using the new system which includes bu
lls said so...
-Original Message-
From: Robert Munn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 4:36 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: ACORN under FBI investigation
There are only three possible reasons I can think of that such widespread
over-registration by ACORN
There are only three possible reasons I can think of that such widespread
over-registration by ACORN could be happening:
1. a very unfortunate coincidence
2. a concerted campaign to inflate the voter rolls and thereby influence
public opinion about momentum (witness all the stories about the wave
yep, we've seen democratic corruption before. it happens. But I don't
understand what the motive wold be either.
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Judah McAuley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm fine with an investigation but I still don't understand the motive
> behind this supposed wide-spread fra
I'm fine with an investigation but I still don't understand the motive
behind this supposed wide-spread fraud.
Could someone explain to me how this would benefit ACORN, Obama or
Democrats in general even if there was a widespread, coordinated
attempt to put through sham voter registrations?
That'
yeah! can't have that!
> ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, says it
> has registered 1.3 million young people, minorities and poor and
> working-class votersmost of whom tend to be Democrats.
~|
Ad
21 matches
Mail list logo
