For everyone who believes that voter fraud elected Bush in 2004, did voter fraud elect a Democratic Congress?

Question

In particular, there were some allegations that the Republicans stole the 2004 election, but I don't understand why, if this was true, they couldn't do it every election cycle.

In other words, why is it that when Republicans won in 2004 it was because of voter fraud, voter supression, neocon conspiracy, etc., but when Democrats took both houses of the congress in 2006, it was the will of the people (or was it)? Couldn't the Republicans have just done the same thing in 2006 as they allegedly did in 2004 (maybe they couldn't)?

What am I missing here? Serious answers only, please.

Answer 1

Here's a very simple, serious answer. As far as the media is concerned, (as well as the Dems.) only dems are entitled to power. It is their birthright. Therefore, they cannot "steal" an election. It is theirs in the natural order of things. A Republican win is an aberration that should not be possible.(in their view) Therefore, a Republican win automatically means it was a "stolen" election. See, it's all in how you look at it.

Answer 2

The first time was Gore won the popula vote and Bush got the electorial vote, it didn't hurt that his brother was in Florida nd then they said the Supreme court was Conservative. They say second one was because Bush borrowed busses from the democrats and bussed millions around to vote two or three times, naw just kidding. The only thing i heard about the second election is that they closed the voting polls early in Missouri so the people could not be bussed around to vote again. If this were true I would figure the aCLU would have jumped on it, so doubt that was correct.
It is amazing that the senators and reps families can work for the lobbyist companies. What would you do if your son or daughter came in and said< "Daddy I have this $200,000 a year job, do you think you can vote for this bill?" Trent Lott is leaving early so he can be a lobbyist. It's a two year law deal that you can not be a lobbyist, so the poorest stte in the union will have to have another election. Anywhere i worked they had a five year deal that you could not approach any clients until that time was up and it should be that way here as some crook could vote for a deal and then go to work for that company later.

Sad but we need t send a message about this and knock a few out.

Anyway people will talk about these elections from now on and you can point out some good reasons. Theres' always been controversy over Chicago and they uned t get winos to vote and the like, then in south Illinois it's suppose to be the repubs there, but who knows. Take care.

Answer 3

The answer to your question is NO.

In the case of George bush getting elected, it was a mistake either way (even though I do believe some of the circumstances of the announcement of presidency were a bit off) for this country, your an idiot and probably corrupt also if you think not. We can see that now. Educated people start to see connections with money being lost, national debt, wars, corruption.

They thought the democrats has their back, they have before, they had trust. Turns out the democrats are just as well paid as the republicans. Not only has neither group put any bill under reasonable question, but they have done nothing productive, continue to neglect immigration issues, the people, and constantly throughout this war have spent and LOST more money than close to any program that has ever been used for the people.

The democrats are filthy pathetic excuses for americans and so are the republicans. Neither group cares about americans but maybe a few individuals, but that's sad. I think Ron paul might be honest, and there is a chance Kucinich also might actually walk the walk.

Anyone can talk like they care and then literally rape the entire nation into what's going to be a depression. So who cares about the parties? Your getting screwed either way!

Answer 4

Keeping it simple... There were accusations of voter fraud in 2000 because of the hanging chads in Florida and people that were not allowed to vote or were prevented from getting to the polls. There was voter fraud in 2004 in Ohio because of the voting machines used did not leave a paper trail and the machines were manufactured by and programmed by people very loyal to the GOP. The exit polls also showed that Kerry was the clear winner in Ohio and Bush apparently won by the skin of his teeth. Unfortunately, there was no paper trail to back this up. There was no voter fraud in 2006. Democrats finally went to the polls and voted rather than staying home and complaining about the situation. If all Democrats went to the polls on a regular basis, there would be no GOP.

Answer 5

Voter fraud was proven in both elections where George Bush "won". Whether there was enough voter fraud to turn the election, it is hard to tell. Florida was obvious. When a count was finally done, after the election when it didn't matter anymore, Al Gore had more votes. This dispite the fact that malfunctioning voting machines lost an estimated 20,000 votes for Gore (which isn't fraud) and the state of Florida illegally removed 30,000 democrats from the voter rolls (which is fraud). And the counts counts from the diebold machines kept subtracting votes from Gore (one precent reported a negative number of votes for Gore). This was clearly fraud.

Republican shills like to pretend that there was no fraud because it delegitamized their hero, but patriotism demands loyality to the country even when it means disloyality to the party. That is one reason why patriots don't support the Republican party and Conservatives do.

Answer 6

7. you are able to no longer see what you do no longer seek for. right here is one for you - why is it okay to assume that Southern Conservatives will have interaction in unlawful habit if left to video reveal their very own balloting regulations without federal regulation - whether this is no longer okay to assume that there could be sufficient criminality on the polls to require Voter identity as a preventive degree? One could argue, for sure, that the states in question DID have interaction in unlawful or questionable habit - yet that replace into 50 years in the past and all people in contact is probably lifeless. One could extra argue that the improprieties you cite occurred in our very own lifetime. one greater question ... if your declare of voter fraud is somewhat authentic, and Bush DID get elected as a consequence, then needless to say you're saying that "as quickly as isn't sufficient" to revise our regulations. what number incidents could be sufficient? a million) It relies upon on whether or no longer they consequence in a Democrat or Republican getting elected 2) It relies upon on whether or no longer they consequence in the guy i like getting elected 3). are you able to assert "bitter grapes"? Bend over and take it like a guy 4). C'mon - actual everyone is conscious those beef-eating, trailer-residing, bible-thumping white trash Southerners can no longer discover their thank you to the "D" on a value tag without federal intervention! 5. Bigotry is barely bigotry if this is against the secure instructions. this is okay to be anti Conservative, anti White,, anti Jew, or anti rich.

Answer 7

2004 and 2006 were two totally different types of national elections.
Some people claim voter fraud because Florida was an important state in 2004, and GWB's brother Jeb was the governor.

I never said I believe it was voter fraud, and in fact, I don't believe that. So why did I get a thumbs down for telling it how it is?

Answer 8

Voter fraud didn't exist in 2004. Idiots caused the Democratic congress!

Answer 9

Yes you are missing something here. THis is an old dead horse. It has been beat to death on here for several years.

Answer 10

No way, to the contrary