It's becoming clearer as the vote approaches. Just today, the Republicans in Oregon challenged thousands of registered voters in Portland, OR; yesterday, it was the Republicans in Wisconsin challenging likely Democratic voters in Milwaukee, WI; before that in Ohio & Florida. There are literally thousands of Republicans that the GOP has planned to move into predominant black preciencts tomorrow in Cleveland, OH, to challenge voters (I'll believe the rulings to the contrary of this happening when the reality matches the ruling).
What are Republicans doing? Simply, they are laying the groundwork to challenge the election results by attacking the vote of those who live in cities within contested states.
Their strategy is to establish doubt surrounding what is likely to be more than the difference between Kerry and Bush in the state. The Republicans are creating 'a margin of doubt' or 'a margin of fraud' in numerical terms of actual registered voters that they've challenged. If the Kerry margin of victory is within the total of the challenged voters, the Republicans will cry that those votes should not be included. They hope to suspend the counting of those votes, through provisional means or otherwise, separating the challenged votes from the other votes counted. And if they manage to show that Bush leads without those challenged votes being counted, a 'theft of the election' will become the Republican cry if the challenged votes are counted.
Let the election be decided by the people who vote? No, Republicans want this decided by their lawyers and their judges in the courts. Go and read Karl Rove in a Corner, by Joshua Green. Hooper was Rove's candidate in '94, here's an excerpt:
Three days after the election Hooper held a press conference to drive home the idea that the election was being stolen. He declared, "We have endured lies in this campaign, but I'll be damned if I will accept outright thievery." The recount stretched on... The race came down to a dispute over absentee ballots... The matter wound up in court. "The last marching order we had from Karl," says a former employee, "was 'Make sure you continue to talk this up. The only way we're going to be successful is if the Alabama public continues to care about it.'"
Initially, things looked grim for Hooper. A circuit-court judge ruled that the absentee ballots should be counted, reasoning that voters' intent was the issue, and that by merely signing them, those who had cast them had "substantially complied" with the law. Hooper's lawyers appealed to a federal court. By Thanksgiving his campaign believed he was ahead--but also believed that the disputed absentee ballots, from heavily Democratic counties, would cost him the election. The campaign went so far as to sue every probate judge, circuit clerk, and sheriff in the state, alleging discrimination. Hooper continued to hold rallies throughout it all. On his behalf the business community bought ads in newspapers across the state that said, "They steal elections they don't like." Public opinion began tilting toward him.
The recount stretched into the following year. On Inauguration Day both candidates appeared for the ceremonies. By March the all-Democratic Alabama Supreme Court had ordered that the absentee ballots be counted. By April the matter was before the Eleventh Federal Circuit Court. The byzantine legal maneuvering continued for months. In mid-October a federal appeals-court judge finally ruled that the ballots could not be counted, and ordered the secretary of state to certify Hooper as the winner.
2000 wasn't an aberration, it was the Rovian pattern.
