It really doesn't matter if it's Hillary, Obama, DK or anyone else

[DeeDeeNY]

UNLESS the votes are fairly counted in the general election, what difference does it make who the Democratic nominee is? After 2000 and 2004, I would be a lot more optimistic if we had Hand Counted Paper Ballots. I'm just sayin.

[jgraz]

1. 2006 shows one problem with that assumption

The 2006 elections were stolen, they just weren't stolen enough. If you have a candidate in a close election, they'll be able to steal it. If the candidate is far ahead, the theft is much more difficult.

That having been said, there's more and more evidence pouring in that Kerry actually DID win by a landslide. So the other side of the coin is that we need a candidate who will actually FIGHT a stolen election, rather than just give up to preserve their own political ambitions.

[DeeDeeNY]

2. Yes, true, we need a candidate who will fight

But that being said, our election counting system really needs to be reformed.

[jgraz]

3. It won't be. Fein$tein and the rest of the Dems have already seen to that

So we need another way around it. A tepid candidate with no ability to fight will mean we lose the White House.

[lutefisk]

5. As long as he/she doesn't fight all the way to the Supreme Court

Since January 2001, the radical right wing has been aggressively purging the federal government of those who are not loyalists. I don't think there is anybody left to help... and forget the mainstream media, too.

[Strelnikov_]

6. Pretty clear they had their finger on the scale in the VA and MT senate races

The tell is when exit polls match results for all races/states except for those that are 'battlegrounds'.

If close, I expect another 2000 in 2008. That is, a resounding popular vote victory for the Democrat (even bigger than 00), but the candidate for the treasonous Republican-Libertarian party squeaks out an electoral college 'victory' on tight 'wins' in a couple of key states. Probably even end up in the SC again.

People seem to be forgetting about the electoral college and that the Reich only has to concentrate its 'efforts' on a few key states.

That's why the Democrats need a candidate that will spread the field.

[OHdem10]

4. It might help if we grew the party making the country

overwhelmingly Democratic. Ah, but it might take a little
work and committment to Democratic Party Values to get
the half of the country which does not vote.

As long as we use the present system, the vote count is going
to be so close that one side does not trust the side.

Let us say we end up with A Dem President and not too much
change in Congress. OR

Republican President and Democratic Congress.

There is a 50/50 chance this Presidency vote can go either way.
Most observers who make serious commentary see the Presidential
election as a long hard fight to the bitter end. In other words
Republicans have a better shot at winning the WH than they do
in winning Congress and Senate. This means a long hard fight.

Since only half the country votes. Small number of votes dividing
the two parties. No matter who wins the other side will smell
somthing fishy.