Well, here's yet another attempt to pave the way and set up the discussion if their candidate doesn't win in November. I mentioned this technique here , but Paul Krugman takes it to new heights of innuendo and conspiracy:
"When I say that the result will be suspect, I don't mean that the election will, in fact, have been stolen. (We may never know.) I mean that there will be sufficient uncertainty about the honesty of the vote count that much of the world and many Americans will have serious doubts. How might the election result be suspect? Well, to take only one of several possibilities, suppose that Florida - where recent polls give John Kerry the lead - once again swings the election to George Bush. " (Emphasis mine)
Note the snide "we may never know". Just the teeniest of suggestion that the conspiracy is soooo-o secret and powerful that, of course, there would be no way to prove that what he is saying was true. Bummer. And how about "where recent polls give John Kerry the lead-
That is deception at its finest. Let's just use one poll, which is the one I tend to check every day, the Rasmussen Poll. Here's what they say about Florida today:
"The latest Rasmussen Reports Florida survey finds Senator John F. Kerry with 47% of the vote to President George W. Bush's 45%. A month ago, Kerry held a 48% to 43% advantage. Two months ago, the candidates were tied in Florida with both Bush and Kerry attracting 46% of the vote.
A month ago, we moved Florida to "Leans Kerry" category in our Electoral College projections. Then, a mid-month update provided to Premium Members showed the race tightening so we moved Florida back to "Toss-Up" status where it remains today.
In Florida, the polls began shifting back to the Toss-Up status shortly after Edwards was announced as the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate. "
In other words, Florida is too close to call, and has gone back and forth between Kerry and Bush for months. But notice how clever Krugman has made the insinuation that if Bush should win in Florida, then his point that the election is suspect will have been proved.
No, Mr. Krugman it won't. There will always be conspiracy theorists like yourself who are not open to facts or reason. You are still mentally stuck back in the year 2000 when your precious candidate lost. And by the way, Bush still won in accepted study that has been done to recount the 2000 Florida vote (look here for a good summary). But people like you conveniently ingnored those results when they came out and held your resentment at losing close to your heart. You undoubtedly will do the same in 2004. You give the term "sore loser" an entirely new nuance--especially since you haven't even lost yet! What you are doing is being a proactive sore loser.
Your pathetic attempts to discount the 2004 election before it even occurs are just another example of left brain dysfunction and right brain hyperventilation. You are so afraid that Kerry will lose, you will do anything and say anything no matter how destructive it may be to your country. If you want to know which political party has a long and distinguished history of voter fraud, look to the Democrats. Here is a brief history that demonstrates my point. Don't get me wrong, there have been instances of Republican fraud, but they pale in comparison with the opportunism and deceit propagated by the other party throughout American history.
Suck it up, Krugman.