[NGTM-1R]

Japan is a prosperous country. If the bases closed down, it's not as if anyone would starve. Most likely the JSDF would either take it over, thereby continuing the revenue to local businesses. or the area would be opened ip to residential/industrial development. And as for Japan's neighbors, which ones are you reffering to (that are hostile)? China's elite class is prospering too much by capitalism to consider war. They've learned the lesson from America and will build a financial empire rather than a military one. I think it's safe to say that China has no interest in provoking a conflict with Japan because of the economic consequences. Their respective heads of state have recently made mutual visits and promised good relations.

The JSDF does not have the funding, or the need, for the base. Besides, this ignores the other bases; the Navy has basing facilities on Honshu still that the Japanese want us to keep (hell they were upset when we stopped basing a CVBG), because right now Aegis and the SM-2 Block IV LEAP is the best defense against North Korea losing it (sanity breaking out there is not a given, after all, it hasn't yet) and launching a nuclear missile, or a barrage of chemical or biological missiles, their way they've got. (It is no accident the JMSDF bought Arleigh Burkes, and they've been trying to get their hands on the LEAPs since it was on the drawing board, but the technology is not up for export by law.)

China has a huge standing military and they have demonstrated a willingness to provoke international incidents that could escalate to war. The country is unstable and may yet, like Germany before it, decide to solve their severe internal problems and indefensible borders via the strategic offense. China also has outstanding (and honestly quite legitimate) grievences against Japan dating back to WWII, and they've been pushing those internally even as they reach out the hand of friendship externally. It's not as clearcut as you make it sound. So far the Chinese have made a point of keeping their options open in the "we might decide you look good invaded" department.

Plus removing basing from Japan would greatly hinder the ability to protect Taiwan if China decides to make something of that.

There are similar cases. Closing down Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean would remove a major stablizing influence on all the powers there. India has made noises about harassing their neighbors, like Pakistan, before. Iran is not exactly the friendliest of nations. There are a lot of smaller nations on the eastern edge of the IO that do not get along, too, but know that it would be looked on unkindly if they were to start something in an area of major shipping lanes.

[Kosh]

Back on topic, McCain and Clinton pull it off in New Hampshire.


So what does this mean for Romney? Personally I think if he can't win in the Northeast he doesn't have a prayer.

[Rictor]

 

8%....well, I still have high hopes for Super Tuesday.

So what does this mean for Romney? Personally I think if he can't win in the Northeast he doesn't have a prayer.

Mormon prayers are a powerful thing. Rememer that they have a hotline direct to God.

[MP-Ryan]

Rudy Giuliani is asked to count to twelve and he goes
"1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-11-9-11-9-11-9-11"

Heh... that's good... and unfortunately, accurate.  Couldn't pick a worse high-profile Republican candidate for the Presidency in this go-'round.

[Goober5000]

8%....well, I still have high hopes for Super Tuesday.

Vote fraud.  And here's how we can tell...

Pre- and post- election polling showed Obama with a significant lead over Clinton; at least 10% in all cases.  And independents who were undecided broke for Obama.  But now the actual returns are showing Clinton leading by 3-5%.

Furthermore, they called the state when only 30% of results were in.  And the entire time the votes were being updated, the spread stayed precisely the same: no swing of +/- 1 percentage point here and there; no trading of places among the low-ranked candidates.

[Kosh]

Pre- and post- election polling showed Obama with a significant lead over Clinton; at least 10% in all cases.  And independents who were undecided broke for Obama.  But now the actual returns are showing Clinton leading by 3-5%.

Oh dear. Were they using electronic voting or was it a paper ballot?

[IPAndrews]

Oh dear indeed. I suggest calling in Amolo Odinga to calm the situation. Voting irregularities in the US? I can't wait to see how this plays out. Then again didn't we see something similar in Florida or something in the last election. Sorry but I'm a Brit I'm not 100% on this stuff.

[Kosh]

There were significant irregularities in florida in the 2000 elections, in 2004 there were massive irregularities in ohio.

I suggest calling in Amolo Odinga to calm the situation. Voting irregularities in the US? I can't wait to see how this plays out

We have experience with this and know exactly what to do about it......nothing. Nothing of real significance happened the last two times so I doubt anything with come of it this time. People are dieing in Kenya because of rigged elections, do Africans care more about democracy than we do?

[IPAndrews]

There were significant irregularities in florida in the 2000 elections, in 2004 there were massive irregularities in ohio.

Thanks. As evidenced - I find it hard to keep up. I also got the impression such events weren't exactly thoroughly investigated.

[Mefustae]

...do Africans care more about democracy than we do?

Intrinsically, yes. Americans tend to take the privilege for granted, as do the people of most western nations. When you have to really fight to have your voice heard, it tends to mean a bit more.

Anyway, shush-up. There may have been irregularities, but you'd be a fool and a communist to make anything of them.

[Kosh]

There were significant irregularities in florida in the 2000 elections, in 2004 there were massive irregularities in ohio.

Thanks. As evidenced - I find it hard to keep up. I also got the impression such events weren't exactly thoroughly investigated.

They weren't. Why would there be an investigation? The ones in power (the president in particular) were the ones that benefited from it.

Intrinsically, yes. Americans tend to take the privilege for granted, as do the people of most western nations.

Perhaps we have become too overconfident. Too sure of ourselves we are.

[Janos]

Vote fraud.  And here's how we can tell...

Pre- and post- election polling showed Obama with a significant lead over Clinton; at least 10% in all cases.  And independents who were undecided broke for Obama.  But now the actual returns are showing Clinton leading by 3-5%.

Furthermore, they called the state when only 30% of results were in.  And the entire time the votes were being updated, the spread stayed precisely the same: no swing of +/- 1 percentage point here and there; no trading of places among the low-ranked candidates.

However, there is absolutely no disrepancy with exit polls and actual votes, so no, and Obama's result is completely within predictions, as is Edward's, which again so no. What was wrong was the undecided voters, who apparentyl voted heavily for Clinton (and perhaps McCain as well!).
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/how_wrong_were_the_polls.php

What is interesting is the fact that Obama got relatively far more paper votes than Diebold votes, while the contrary is true for Clinton. However, about 80% of NH votes are cast with Diebold, and Hillary is quite popular in population centers.

[NGTM-1R]

I think my feelings can be summed up as "damnation"

[Kosh]

What is interesting is the fact that Obama got relatively far more paper votes than Diebold votes, while the contrary is true for Clinton. However, about 80% of NH votes are cast with Diebold, and Hillary is quite popular in population centers.

Diebolds are also hidiously insecure, and there have been noted problems with them.

[Janos]

What is interesting is the fact that Obama got relatively far more paper votes than Diebold votes, while the contrary is true for Clinton. However, about 80% of NH votes are cast with Diebold, and Hillary is quite popular in population centers.

Diebolds are also hidiously insecure, and there have been noted problems with them.

Yup. Still, Diebold results are neatly in line with the exit polls :/

Here's hoping Obama will now campaign harder and beat Clinton. Clinton's "experience" card is so damn thin, she's had less time in elected office than Obama who always gets accused of being inexperienced!

And yet, with sadistic glee, I sometimes hope McCain or some at least remotely bearable Republican (not-Giuliani) wins, because then the Republicans had to deal with the entire Middle East crisis and financial downhill and couldn't just accuse Democratic president of "failing to do the job [we started but shhh don't mention that]".

[Goober5000]

Vote fraud confirmed

It leads off with Ron Paul, but it also focuses on the Obama->Clinton swing as well as a few other anomalies.

[Janos]

Vote fraud confirmed

It leads off with Ron Paul, but it also focuses on the Obama->Clinton swing as well as a few other anomalies.

Yes, confirmed indeed, as it say---

"While I have no evidence at this time --- let me repeat, no evidence at this time --- of chicanery, what we do know is that chicanery, with this particular voting system, is not particularly difficult. Particularly when one private company --- and a less-than-respectable one at that, as I detailed in the previous post --- runs the entire process."

oops.

Speculation != confirmation

[Goober5000]

Did you not read the article I linked?  There were 31 votes in a certain county that should have been recorded, while the actual recorded total was 0.  That's fraud.  Whether it was intentional or not is immaterial; it happened.  And if it happened in one county, it's very possible that it happened in others.

Blithely ignoring evidence is no way to win an argument.  It doesn't work for TrashMan, and it won't work for you.

[Flipside]

The problem is the term 'vote fraud' has the same undertones as 'vote rigging', which is something completely different.

Maybe we should use a term like 'Vote Discrepancy' until it's known whether the numbers were deliberately manipulated?

[Rictor]

But why give a class of professional con-artists the benefit of the doubt? Remember the "intelligence failures" that led to Iraq. "No officer, I didn't try to rob that house. My intelligence sources told me that it was in fact my house. Boy is my face red."

I think the real problem is that US citizens find the concept of deliberate voter fraud so outlandish, so "third-world" that their righteousness will not let them contemplate it actually taking place in their cherished country. And let me say that I don't know whether it did or didn't - not now or in 2004 or in 2000. But it's certainly possible. Something tells me that seriously considering the possibility offends the American sensibilities so deeply that you could have all the evidence in the world and it would be neatly ignored.

But in a remarkable turn of events, I'm actually with Janos on this one. I hope that the most hawkish, militaristic candidate is elected (Guliani or McCain) so that the inevitable fiscal/military crash comes sooner rather than later. Then us Paulites will be there to say "I told you so" from the comfort of our tax-free drug-legal moonbase, which Dr.Paul is constructing at this very moment..