« Washington Court OKs Counting “Houdini Ballots” | Home | Pro-Abortion Groups Fear Bush’s Nominees »
From Ohio To Washington… And Back Again
By Matt Margolis | December 23, 2004
Bush’s margin of victory over Kerry in Ohio was approximately 119,000 votes.
Gregoire’s alleged margin of victory over Rossi in Washington is 8 votes. 129 votes*
Why does this matter? What’s the big picture? It matters because both elections resulted in recounts. The former was funded partly by third party candidates, and the Kerry campaign – the differences in the results were negligible. The latter race initially resulted in a 261 vote victory for Rossi. This triggered an automatic recount, which Rossi won again by 41 votes.
In Ohio, allegations of tampering with voting machines were found to be baseless. In Washington, over 700 ballots magically appeared from Democratic stronghold King County during the manual recount. Suspicious to any objective observer.
The reactions of liberals to both these elections has been very similar: Just keep recounting and hope the results change. Alledge this and claim that… In Ohio, Bush’s victory was well outside what I call the “margin of fraud,” but in Washington, the margin of victory for either candidate was easily susceptible to shady practices that could alter the income. Within the margin of fraud.
However, the moment Gregoire was declared—by Democrats—to be the winner by a mere 8 votes, Rossi was called on to concede and liberals across the country and the blogosphere were ecstatic.
To them, a 8 vote victory by a Democrat is more definitive than a 119,000 vote victory by a Republican—and not just any Republican, but George W. Bush.
The Democratic Underground community began celebrating, suggesting that Rossi “concede and get over it.” They also found plenty of ways to champion the 8 vote Gregoire “victory.” Rossi’s initial victory was 33 times larger, and after the first recount 5 times larger…after which Gregoire did not concede.
How many licks does it take to get to the Tootsie Roll center of a Tootsie Pop? How many recounts does it take before you can find enough votes for the Democrat to win?
Recounts in Ohio have had little impact on the results, no tampering was involved, and the vote was certified, yet they still hold out hope that somehow Kerry may have won in despite nearly the 119,000 more votes cast for Bush than Kerry in the state. Eight votes (based on Democrats’ number crunching) in Washington, however, is a done deal?
How long will they contest Ohio and watch the result remain static and their conspiracy theories debunked before they “concede and get over it?”
Liberals cannot claim a definitive victory in Washington without conceding Ohio first. If Kerry can concede, so can they. Instead, they act as if the definition of democracy is the victory of their candidate and their candidate only.
But, democracy is not limited to the victory of their preferred candidates, and they have to learn that sooner than later. Battles are won and lost and crying foul every time you lose does not make you a concerned citizen, but rather a sore loser.
No matter what happens in Washington, the Democrats are the sore losers.
* - The 8 vote margin refers to the first result of the manual recount as reported yesterday. Subsequent reports indiciate the final margin was 10 votes. — then 129 after the the found ballots were included
Topics: Dem Watch |
Related Posts:
December 23rd, 2004 at 6:40 pm
“In Washington, over 700 ballots magically appeared from Democratic stronghold King County during the manual recount. Suspicious to any objective observer.”
…but not suspicious to a unanimous ruling by the Washington State Supreme Court declaring the votes valid, or our Republican Secretary of State, Sam Reed, who also calls the votes valid.
Oh! I see. “Objective observer” means “Matt Margolis”. Got it.
December 23rd, 2004 at 6:56 pm
So Todd, do you think all courts are always right?
Just the ones whose rulings you agree with right?
December 23rd, 2004 at 10:32 pm
I generally, though not always, do think courts rule correctly, especially in unanimous decisions.
This is also the same court which, last week, ruled unanimously against the Democrats when they attempted to force county election officers statewide to re-examine rejected ballots.
Did I agree with their decision, even though it didn’t help the Democrats? You bet.
Beyond the courts, Secretary of State Sam Reed (a Republican whom I voted for) also agrees with this ruling.
So your point is…?
December 23rd, 2004 at 10:55 pm
Cherrypicking examples to reinforce your position doesn’t cut it here.
December 24th, 2004 at 12:17 am
I’m not clear about what you’re referring to. We’re not speaking to each other - you’ll have to flesh out your responses.
1) I’m contending that your ’suspicions’ about the votes are unfounded. If you think I’m cherrypicking examples to support my view, give me some evidence that supports the opposing viewpoint.
2) You insinuated that I only agree with courts if their opinion meshes with mine. This isn’t correct and I provided you with an example. You don’t have to believe me, but I am being honest. Do you consider my correction of your erroneous assumption ‘cherrypicking’?
How about something more substantial for the debate instead of one-liners?
December 24th, 2004 at 12:23 am
Todd,
any idiot can see that a box of ballots suddenly appearing after the start of the manual recount which was paid for by Democrats, and found in a Democrat stronghold is suspicious.
December 24th, 2004 at 12:48 am
Any evidence on your suspicions?
You know something Sam Reed and the entire Washington Supreme Court don’t know? Anything at all?
You just believe something must be wrong? Just a gut feeling? No evidence, but it’s just gotta be?
Wow, I thought us liberals had cornered the market on conspiracy theories.
December 24th, 2004 at 12:58 am
If boxes turned up in Republican strongholds you’d probably be suspicious. Suspicious does not have to be based on conclusive evidence, but can be a response to circumstantial evidence.
if you tend to believe a unanimous court decision, then you probably accept any jury verdict to be infallible too, becaues a jury has to unanimously reach a verdict.
December 24th, 2004 at 2:13 am
Good point.
December 29th, 2004 at 10:44 am
2 things on the Washington state gubernatorial debacle. 1) Gregoire if she wins will be a one term governor as no GOP legislator will work with her.
2) WOMEN should be banned from running for office as they are a bunch of crybabies and cowards. the men in Washington State who voted for her should need sex change operations because they aren’t real men. A woman has different interests than a man does and is more “touchy-feely” and sensitive. If Michael Savage was the governor of Washington State, he would take names and cut the size of government.
December 29th, 2004 at 10:55 am
sorry for the harshness and the chauvinism, but my experience from Hillary to Patty Murray to Boxer and Feinstein is that their interests are very different from mine and heaven forbid they be in charge of sending troops to war.
August 27th, 2006 at 12:01 am
dragonball z hentai
cr00topcheg
August 27th, 2006 at 12:32 am
male masturbation techniques
cr00topcheg
August 27th, 2006 at 5:42 am
interracial wife slut stories
Idinax33000i
August 27th, 2006 at 6:24 am
male masturbation guide
Idinax33000i
August 27th, 2006 at 6:37 am
hardcore porn
cr00topcheg
August 27th, 2006 at 6:47 am
gangbang sluts
Idinax33000i