this is really clever reasoning and provides an opportunity to break thru a barrier that has proved impenetrable by ordinary political processes.

a follow-up question:

what are some examples of the â€chinks†the democrats have revealed, dislodged, or removed over time ?

please flesh this out.

None of this will matter. The republicans have a way of holding onto information until it is no longer relevant. Even now,when we want to account for how we got into the war, they argue, it’s too late to argue that, we don’t have time, we have to be patriotic and deal with the war, now. The middle east is literally exploding into fragments and potential world war. This will look irrelevent by the time we get to it. The Cia leak seems inconsequential, unless a spy was killed or outted.

The only thing that matters is that we figure out a way to make sure the elections are solid. Otherwise our democracy is gone and the power brokers are in charge for years to come. I know it is a bleak outcome…people keep talking about poles, people keep talking about strategy. None of it matters if the elections were tainted. None of it matters if they are going to buy their wins by cheating in the elections. There is very good, solid, scientific evidence that this is what occured in the united states of america. That they cheated in a variety of way and with a breadth of scope that is breath taking. I encourage all to reading Freeman’s book about election 2000, and 2004. Also read Crispin Miller’s account.

What difference does any of this make if our votes are not counted? I live in nebraska. I did not know a single person who would be voting for Bush except for my next door neighbor. Every republican who voted for him in 2000 changed their mind by 2004. But the results mimicked the 2000 vote. Think about what this says if they are willing to cheat at election time. We are not fighting within the bounds of democracy. This is bigger than that. The evidence may not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt but it makes it clear that they were trying to change the outcome of the elections from the will of the people to the will of the Bush administration.

We are in denial about what this means.

I agree with Katie Jensen about the unreliability of the election process in this country. I can’t get a clear answer out of my local official about the security of Diebold voting machines that reassures me, in spite of his polite explanation that I have nothing to worry about.

And, without Democrats in control of Congress, there will be no investigations of this Administration and the war. The media will not help, either, nor the public, which is so brainwashed and/or weary of it all. I have never been so depressed about the future of this country, not even in the worst days of Nixon.

It’s true that if the elections are sufficiently rigged, all other issues become in that context â€irrelevant.†Nontheless, emptywheel is right to explore all the issues that she explores so capably, and it may be that at this point in time US elections are not so completely rigged that the fundamental necessity of 2006, the establishment of a Democratic Party majority in at least one house of Congress, isn’t still possible. It’s my feeling that the Republicans have been willing to â€tilt†at the margins, but are so far not willing to have an obvious election steal, Ohio in ’04 notwithstanding. Opinion polls and exit polls do provide a certain measure of accountability. Of course we’ll certainly see in November, and I share the worry that it’s â€too late.†In fact, if in November the Republicans do manage to maintain a majority in both Houses, I would submit that fact as evidence of the failure of the mechanics of United States elections–with, as hypotheis B, the utter failure of the Educational System of the US to produce competent democratic citizens.