Democratic strategist: Party 'in decline'

One of the Democrats’ most veteran strategists warns that the party is “in decline” and “at considerable risk” when President Barack Obama is no longer on the scene.

“Since Obama was elected President, the Democrats have lost nine governorships, 56 members of the House and two Senate seats,” Doug Sosnik, the political director in Bill Clinton’s White House, writes in a new memo.

While Republican branding problems get the lion’s share of attention, the Democratic Party’s favorability rating has declined by 15 points since Obama took power. A Pew Research Center survey this January showed that the Democratic Party was viewed favorably by 47 percent of Americans, down from 62 percent in Jan. 2009.

With the likelihood of gridlock and near-record-low confidence in public institutions, Sosnik expects 2014 to bring the fourth change election in the past eight years....

This woman is extremely bright and could build a computer from scratch and write the software for it. She left her home, and lived in Ohio during this period. She organized workers in Ohio and set up the system they used to get voters to the polls.

Yes, 'rats could use computers in a legitimate way to help get voters to the polls. But I suspect that they did more than that in the swing states, like blatant hacking of the vulnerable computer systems (touch screen or optical scamming) that are used to vote with and to tally votes. From what I hear from a professional in computer science, this type of cheating is very doable and distorts vote counts much more than the more "traditional" kinds of cheating (that is, more bang for the effort, from the sleazebag's point of view). In that way, cheating and fraud could well have had a much larger impact on the reported results of the election than ever before. And it could well account for the fact the Obama did uniformly better in the reported results as compared to pre-election polls in all swing states. It's not the pollsters who did a bad job in their polling, it's just that you can't account for cheating and fraud when you prognosticate elections based on your polling.

The most obvious evidence of cheating, now that you mention Ohio, was the complete "shutouts" reported in some predominantly black districts in Cleveland. There is no way any major candidate for president can get zero votes in any sizable election district in a free and fair election. I can see the Romney vote in single-digit percentages in a lot of these districts, but Zero votes? No way that happens unless the vote totals are rigged.

Certainly, some of the Clinton-era "innovations" in voting procedure aid and abet the cheaters, especially early voting (or multiple-day voting). A cunning operative can register himself or others at multiple sites and take busloads to different locations over the lengthy polling period so that they vote multiple times. Early voting should be repealed everywhere it exists. We have to insist that election law emphasizes honesty and integrity over convenience!

But the Democrats need not worry. They have been ratcheting up their vote fraud apparatus for many years now with same-day registration, vote-by-mail, failure to purge voter roles, encouraging felons, illegals and the mentally ill to vote or have a Dem operative vote for them, etc.

I have no doubts the Dem party will survive Obama as strong as ever because the Dems know you don’t need a real living, breathing, thinking voter to vote for them as long as the Dems control who counts the votes.

You are right on target, OrangeHoof, but their is one other and even more overwhelming weapon in the 'Rat election cheating and fraud arsenal. That is the capability of hacking into electronic voting systems, particularly optical scanning and touch screens, to distort results in their favor.

Judging from the discrepancies in the same direction between final polls and reported election results in all the swing states, it would appear as if the 'Rat dirty work may well have been decisive in the Obama vs. Romney contest nationally. In other words, had the election been held on the level everywhere in the country last November, Mitt Romney might be the POTUS today.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.