Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The Worldnutdaily has its typically hysterical -- as in fomenting hysteria, not as in funny -- "exclusive" story about how Obama is planning to steal the next election. Unsurprisingly, it's just a stewpot full of paranoia, unsubstantiated rumors and fanciful projections.
As Barack Obama's approval ratings continue to plummet, the tea party movement explodes and Democrats lose election after election - even in Massachusetts - one giant question looms large for Team Obama: How to stay in power?
Actually, Obama's approval ratings have been on the rise for several weeks now. And losing election after election? Where do they get this stuff from. There have been two special elections so far since 2008, one in New York to replace Gillabrand and one in Massachusetts to replace Kennedy. The score is 1/1.
And as for the tea party movement exploding, that's exactly what happened in the New York race -- the hard right candidate split the vote with the mainstream Republican candidate and the Democrat ended up winning. That may well play itself out all over the country if the Republicans can't talk the tea partiers out of running their own candidates.
"The people currently running the show in Washington," said Whistleblower Editor David Kupelian, "come from the radical leftist world of Saul Alinsky in which everything they do - no matter how unethical, corrupt and flat-out illegal - is morally justified if it advances their agenda. Winning votes and elections by any means possible is their stock in trade."
Really? Should we examine the track record of criminal and civil cases involving voter fraud vs those involving illegal voter purges by Republicans? The Republican party has lost multiple federal court cases involving illegal voter purges or voter caging. In Michigan alone, our Republican Secretary of State has lost at least three of those cases in the last seven years.
The Republican National Committee lost a lawsuit over voter caging in 1981 and it ended with a consent decree in which the RNC promised not to practice caging again. That case has had to be reopened several times because they've continued to violate the decree several times (including last year here in Michigan).
Now let's contrast that with the legal history of voter fraud, which is nearly non-existent. Yes, there is plenty of voter registration fraud, which is the result of canvassers trying to make money without doing the work so they make up fake names or copy names out of the phone book. When they do so, they are turned in to the authorities.
But there is no causal connection between voter registration fraud and voter fraud. I spoke with a county elections official here in Michigan earlier this week and he said sure, a certain percentage of voter registration is always bad -- false information, unreadable, incomplete, etc -- but that they've never had a single case of voter impersonation or illegal voting. Ever. And this is one of the largest counties in Michigan.
So much for this huge threat of voter fraud.
Universal voter registration: Now being secretly prepared by at least two prominent members of Congress, this is essentially a scheme to legalize voter fraud by shifting responsibility for registering to vote from the citizen to the government, meaning people are automatically registered to vote, based on DMV records, income-tax returns, welfare rolls, unemployment lists and other government databases.
Secretly prepared? Are they going to secretly pass it too? There are advocates of universal voter registration (I am not one of them) and there always have been. This is hardly evidence that anyone is going to steal any election. This is classic politics. The Democrats always want to increase voter turnout and the Republicans always want to decrease it. Welcome to reality.
Amnesty: Disguised once again by euphemisms like "comprehensive immigration reform," amnesty will create millions of new Democrat voters.
Except that no one is actually proposing amnesty. I'm all for it myself and it has nothing to do with who anyone is going to vote for. But a general amnesty for illegal aliens is extremely unlikely in this country and the Democrats have done nothing at all to make it happen since taking power.
Planting operatives in America's statehouses: A subversive, Soros-backed group called the Secretary of State Project is gearing up to steal the 2012 election for Obama and congressional Democrats by installing left-wing Democrats as secretaries of state across the nation, from which posts they can help tilt the electoral playing field.
Wow, you mean rich Democrats are trying to get Democrats elected? How shocking. I bet rich Republicans are trying to get Republicans elected too. Welcome to the real world; wear a helmet. Maybe -- just maybe -- getting rid of the Republican Secretaries of State will help eliminate all the illegal voter purges they routinely do.
Politics
Comments
In related news, Orly Taitz has launched her campaign for the office of Secretary of State in California.
She immediately attacked the other republican challenger.
http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/the-hilarious-haters/repub-secretary-of-state-candi/
Posted by: Chilidog | March 5, 2010 9:43 AM
I seem to recall that some people were trying to use the threat of terrorism to justify the Bush Administration "postponing" the 2004 elections. Man, that raised the hairs on the back of my neck!
Posted by: Chiroptera | March 5, 2010 9:45 AM
I would love to see Jocelyn Benson get elected as the Secretary of State for Michigan, not because she is going to "tilt the electoral playing field", but because she is going to make voting more convenient. There is no reason to allow some people to vote absentee before election day, and not others. If we get a Secretary of State who is a Democrat, everyone will be provided the same opportunity.
That is what Democrats stand for- to provide everyone with the opportunity to vote, to promote democracy. It's not because they think these policies will only get votes for Democrats, it's because they're the policies that best support the people and provide them with a voice, regardless of who benefits from that voice.
Posted by: Jordan G | March 5, 2010 10:03 AM
Is this "amnesty" going to either give citizenship to all illegals, or to change the rules so that not citizens can vote? Unless it does, I don't see how it can possibly increase the Democrat vote.
Posted by: G.Shelley | March 5, 2010 10:06 AM
Why would the Dems go to all that trouble to steal an election when the Republicans have perfected much simpler methods they can use?
Posted by: William George | March 5, 2010 10:10 AM
Gee, we have universal government-run voter registration up here. Haven't noticed anyone stealing elections (at least, not that way -- the time-honoured tactics of smearing your opponent and promising voters the sun and the moon work here about as well as anywhere). District boundaries are decided by bureaucrats, too -- and I rarey hear anything about gerrymandering.
Why does the USA have such trouble with concepts that work fine for just about every other Western democracy?
Posted by: Eamon Knight | March 5, 2010 10:20 AM
"And losing election after election? Where do they get this stuff from. There have been two special elections so far since 2008, one in New York to replace Gillabrand and one in Massachusetts to replace Kennedy. The score is 1/1."
They are probably including the 2009 elections for governors of New Jersey and Virginia, both won by the GOP.
Brian
Posted by: Brian63 | March 5, 2010 11:06 AM
I can't say that nobody was doing that, but from what I remember seeing, there were just certain people asking, "What should we do if there is a major terrorist attack just before election day?"
I thought that was a reasonable question. Would it be right to hold an election in New York immediately following a 9/11 magnitude attack? Those broaching the question were immediately shut down, and while I appreciated the fact that elections--i.e., the refusal to try to hold onto power outside the electoral process--is so sacrosanct in the U.S., I regret that we haven't discussed and made plans for this eventuality, as I think we should.
As to the substance of the post--those people are nutjobs, as always. It boils down to a pre-emptive framing strategy: "If the Democrats win the election, as I'm afeared they'll do, remember that I warned you they would steal it."
Posted by: James Hanley | March 5, 2010 11:07 AM
In this morning's paper I see where Charles Krauthammer repeats the canard that the 2009 gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia were shocking rebukes to the Obama administration. He was strangely silent, however, on the Democratic sweep of special elections for the U.S. House of Representatives in California and New York. The net result: State-based races went to the GOP and the federal races went to the Democrats. Nancy Pelosi actually picked up seats for her majority. Krauthammer spins and misses, as do all the others who carefully avoid seeing things they don't want others to see.
Democrats Sweep Congress
Posted by: Zeno | March 5, 2010 11:29 AM
I don't know why they think the 2012 election will be a cakewalk for their side. Firstly, Obama's approval ratings are higher than Reagan's in 1982. Carter actually had higher approval ratings than both of them at this point in his term. The Republicans were also unpopular in the midterms; losing 27 seats in the House in 1982. The fact is you can't predict presidential elections 3 years out. H.W. Bush looked like a lock in 1990.
I don't think the Republicans have a lot of good potential nominees. Romney is probably their best bet, but his record on abortion and gays is mixed and Romneycare is almost the mirror image of Obamacare. He would almost definitely cause a 3rd party teabagger candidate to run.
Posted by: penn | March 5, 2010 12:15 PM
Strange, no one's showed up to derail the thread based on the use of this word yet.
Posted by: Azkyroth | March 5, 2010 12:54 PM
(...yes, the irony was intentional).
You know, pointing out projection on the part of the wingnuts is kind of becoming cliche. :/
Posted by: Azkyroth | March 5, 2010 12:58 PM
James Hanley, #8: I can't say that nobody was doing that, but from what I remember seeing, there were just certain people asking, "What should we do if there is a major terrorist attack just before election day?"
It could be that I misremember. My memory is known to make stuff up. Or it could have been amped up hysteria from the echo chamber in which I partake.
-
I thought that was a reasonable question. Would it be right to hold an election in New York immediately following a 9/11 magnitude attack?
Indeed it is. I think, though, that we already have an answer. Do whatever we do when a major flood or hurricane occurs on election day.
Posted by: Chiroptera | March 5, 2010 1:59 PM
He won't have to "steal" the next election. With Affirmative Action he'll just step ahead in line, in front of a better qualified candidate (ie: Republican and white).
Jeez, they've got me writing their next bout of faux outrage for them.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | March 5, 2010 3:30 PM
Why do I perceive a massive case of projection when someone starts talking about "Alinsky-esque tactics"?
Posted by: MarkusR | March 5, 2010 3:38 PM
It seriously bugs me that people don't take the initiative when the reichwingnuts start off about Alinsky.
"What? You're still fighting a rearguard action against the Civil Rights Movement?"
Or when they go ballistic that Obama was recommended to Harvard by someone associated with Alinsky: "You're expecting maybe a black guy was going to get a recommendation from a follower of Lester Maddox?"
Etc.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | March 5, 2010 4:29 PM
I don't understand why anyone believes that Obama could run again in 2012. Why would a Kenyan national be allowed on the US ballot? I have to believe that would cause a Constitutional crisis and would be the end of our democracy.
Posted by: kehrsam | March 5, 2010 5:02 PM
...please tell me kehrsam is Poeing.
Also, I've noticed that putting Soros in their articles has become a must on the loony right-wing conspiracy gauntlet. Kind of like their version of Rupert Murdoch, only much less justified.
Posted by: Tamarron | March 5, 2010 8:19 PM
Something is missing here. Something. What is it? Oh, I know. How come there is no mention of ... Acorn? What kind of voter fraud story can you have without mentioning Acorn even once? Or twice? or twelve times? Acorn. Acorn. Acorn. Teleprompter. Acorn.
Posted by: Gerry L | March 5, 2010 11:02 PM
Something is missing here. Something. What is it? Oh, I know. How come there is no mention of ... Acorn? What kind of voter fraud story can you have without mentioning Acorn even once? Or twice? or twelve times? Acorn. Acorn. Acorn. Teleprompter. Acorn.
Posted by: Gerry L | March 5, 2010 11:06 PM
Tamarron, who else could they put? Ed Begley Jr.? The Evil Leftwing Communists Conspiracy Against America is, and I can't stress this enough, full of goofs. They wouldn't even rate as villains in a shitty James Bond film. Even The Man with the Golden Gun, a hatchet job against solar power I should mention, had Christopher Lee.
My point is, we've got no Christopher Lee.
Look at it this way: "They" had Atwater, Rove and Cheney getting get richer, more powerful and they didn't care how many innocent people got crushed by their machine. "We" had three guys in ACORN who wrote fake names on voter registration forms to make about a dollar more an hour.
Mr. President, we must not allow an evil gap!
Posted by: Modusoperandi | March 5, 2010 11:11 PM
When I first heard about WND was that it is a satire site, no news but just fictional stories. WND is nothing but a conspiracy site with a lot of readers happy to enter a Wonderland-esque world.
Posted by: Anthony | March 6, 2010 6:05 PM
Steal the election?!?
Hell, according to Intrade, the Democrats are likely to win the midterms (Senate Dem 64/ Rep 20; House Dem 55/ Rep 44).
The 2012 Presidential elections will also be a Democrat victory (Dem 55/ Rep 42). And it's not difficult see why. Top three Republican candidates: Mitt Romney 23.1/ Sarah Palin 22.3/ John Thume 13.8; top three Democrat nominees Barack Ombama 81.2/ Hillary Clinton 7.8/ Joe Biden 1.9.
Dingo
---------
OF course it's possible that the market could be completely wrong, it's possible that some little-known candidate can come out of nowhere and shoot to the front (a la Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama), it's possible that conditions could change (GFC or 9/11), it's possible that a third party could split the vote (Bullmoose, Dixiecrats and possibly Teabaggers).
It's certainly not in the bag, but it seems likely, no 'theft' required.
Posted by: DingoJack | March 6, 2010 8:24 PM
We have universal, compulsory voting here in Australia. Keeps the special-interest crazies from winning, and bypasses all those issuse you have in the US where the poor are kept from voting.
Preferential voting is a good idea, too. Instant runoff may not be the best system, but is a damn sight better than first-past-the-post. First preference data sends a very, very clear signal to the major parties.
Posted by: Paul Murray | March 7, 2010 5:09 AM