Losers in denial over Bush

The Times (UK) ^ | 11/12

[Boiling point]

I would truly love to see the margin Bush actually won by if the voter fraud of the left were discounted. The dead vote, the across state line multi vote, the fictitious name absentee vote, pet vote, et al.

[Truth Table]

The most convincing evidence that the election was simply the voice of the American people actually occured 2 years ago in the midterms. The dems lost congressional seats.

Republicans picked them up.

The exact same thing happened on Nov 2. The only difference is that the American people were also given the choice of who they wanted to be at the helm of the ship of state. repub pickups in 02. Repub pick ups in 04. What's so hard to understand, libs? You guys like polls and trends, right? How've your candidates been trending since 94?

Thus endeth the lesson.

[Gorzaloon]

Basically what this shows is that leftist British reporters know more about the far side of the Moon than they do about the United States.

Including the reference to the "General Accountability Office".

[My2Cents]

They'll find something wrong with the recount. An official recount in Florida didn't stop Al Gore in 2000, and it won't stop the foaming-mouth lunatics this time either. They'll find something else wrong in Ohio, like the legal definition of what constitutes a "vote." Let them stew in their own bile.

[Jorge]

Not a single one was produced, yet this becomes accepted fact.

You know what? If these losers insist on believing the myths about "disenfranchised" voters..I say let them.

If they reject every truthful presentation of the facts and prefer instead to be victims, then who are we to interfere with their misery? They deserve it.

Let them go on deceiving and being deceived. This is why the shrinks in Palm Beach are having to council Kerry supporters who can't deal with reality.

[Dog Gone]

Of course. Like it or not nationally the Republican party has less members then the Democrat party. For any Republican to win on a purely Republican vote is not possible.

What are Texans? We don't register by party. Good golly it looks like we have millions of Republicans but you can't prove it.

[CyberAnt]

Yes, nationally dems may outnumber repubs - but in the county I live in - we outnumber dems by more than 5%.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

What are Texans? We don't register by party. Good golly it looks like we have millions of Republicans but you can't prove it.

Actually you register by voting in the primary in Texas. If you vote in the Democrat Primary you registered as a Democrat. If you vote in the Republican Primary you registered as a Republican.

[frannie]

What about Philadelphia, they had more -REGISTERED - voters than there are citizens in the city.

I saw this several times but have never heard how it was handled or investigated.

Frannie

[Dog Gone]

That isn't true, for one thing, but even if it was, primary turnout is pitiful.

So who are those voters who turn out in mass on general election day? And how do you know that they are from a particular party?

You don't.

The media claims that there are more registered Democrats than Republicans in an effort to portray the Dems as the majority party. It's a lie.

[djpg]

Al Gore's legacy.

[ChefKeith]

Or the Florida counties where Mr Bush’s votes were substantially larger than the number of registered Republicans.

Geeze, 'Ya suppose that the extra votes COULD BE Dems that saw through the B.S. of the left?

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

It is true according to the Lublock GOP.

http://www.lubbockgop.org/

Go read it for yourself.

[Dog Gone]

Okay, here's the rule. You can't point someone to a page and say "go read it for yourself" unless that page actually remotely backs you up.

I'm not going to spend 45 minutes searching the site in an attempt to find out what you based your statement on.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

It is right there on the first page a little more then half way down.

Here is the quote

How do I become a Republican in Texas?

In Texas, registering as a Republican is done by voting in the Republican Primary Election held each even-numbered year in March. Texas has an open primary system in which all registered voters are allowed to participate. However, a voter may only vote in one Party's primary. You may not vote, or participate, in more than one political party's primary election.

[Dog Gone]

That's there, but it's false, and it still doesn't address my overall point about the total number of registered Republicans.

If I vote in the Democrat primary in Texas, I get a little stamp on my voter card. That prevents me from voting in any Republican run-off election if one is held a few weeks later.

It doesn't make me a registered Democrat for any future election.

If I register to vote in Texas and DON'T vote in the primary, nobody will know which party I probably preferred in the general election. There are FAR more of those voters than those who vote in primary elections.

The Lubbock page is just flat out wrong. You can NOT become registered as a Republican or a Democrat in Texas.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Ok fine. It looked like a legitimate site and it wasn't the first time I had heard that so I thought it was correct.

You might want to inform them that they are wrong.

And yes there are always more voters who vote in the general elections then in the primary. Generally only party members are interesting in primary voting. That is the point.

We are talking about people who are interested enough in the party politics to be involved. Currently the numbers favor Democrats on a national level.

If you do not vote in the primary it usually means that you are not interested in party politics and likely would not identify with either party.

That is what is generally considered an independent voter.

Of course there are various reasons why a person would not vote in a primary including that there is only one person running for the nomination which is why you look at voting trends.

Currently it is trending toward Republicans and away from Democrats.