CT Blue

Paul Krugman notes that the Republicans appear to be stealing signs in Princeton:

If you drive around Princeton right now, you may notice a curious thing: there are a lot of Romney/Ryan signs, very few Obama/Biden signs. Now, Princeton does have a fair number of investment bankers in residence, but it’s nonetheless a pretty liberal town. What’s going on?

Well, I don’t know for sure. What I do know is that several people I know well have had their Obama/Biden signs stolen during the night.

Nov. 7 may be an ugly day in America.

(via NYTimes.com)

I don’t know if it would make him feel any better, but this is pretty much standard operating procedure for the Republicans. Back in 1980 I switched my intended vote from Barry Commoner to Jimmy Carter on the Friday before the election. I had originally thought he could win without me. I know this is impossible, but I still believe I could feel the tide turning. I panicked and went to Democratic headquarters to volunteer. I spent two days putting up signs, which we literally stapled to poles. They were gone within half an hour. The Reagan signs remained, so it wasn’t conscientious public servants removing signs on the public right of way. To a greater or lesser extent, it happens in all Federal elections (the locals respect each other). And yes, while I’m sure some Democrats do it, it’s primarily a Republican thing. Why should a party that encourages employers to threaten their employees stop at stealing a few signs?

Krugman’s larger point, unfortunately, may be well taken. The dwellers under rocks will react with outrage to an Obama win, and despite the lack of evidence will claim the election was stolen. They will not “get over it” like we were supposed to do when Bush actually did steal an election. Nor will the press ignore them, like it did the thousands of protesters in Washington the day Bush was inaugurated. Look for fireworks, especially, if Romney manages to get enough votes from the Southern knuckle draggers to win the popular vote but lose in the electoral college. You know, like Gore. It is little noted, nor has it been long remembered, that the Bush folks feared being on the wrong side of that outcome, and weren’t prepared to go quietly into that good night:

In the days before the Nov. 7 election, Republicans feared that Vice President Al Gore might win the Electoral College while Texas Gov. George W. Bush could win the national popular vote.

The expectation then was that Green Party candidate Ralph Nader might siphon off millions of votes from Gore nationwide, but not enough in key states to keep them out of Gore’s column.

That could allow Gore to amass the 270 electoral votes needed for winning the presidency while blocking a Gore plurality in the popular vote.

To stop Gore under those circumstances, advisers to the Bush campaign weighed the possibility of challenging the legitimacy of a popular-vote loser gaining the White House.

“The one thing we don’t do is roll over – we fight,” said a Bush aide, according to an article by Michael Kramer in the New York Daily News on Nov. 1, a week before the election.

The article reported that “the core of the emerging Bush strategy assumes a popular uprising, stoked by the Bushies themselves, of course. In league with the campaign – which is preparing talking points about the Electoral College’s essential unfairness – a massive talk-radio operation would be encouraged.”

“We’d have ads, too,” said a Bush aide, “and I think you can count on the media to fuel the thing big-time. Even papers that supported Gore might turn against him because the will of the people will have been thwarted.”

(via The Consortium)

Breathes there a sentient being who doubts such a campaign, this time fueled by high octane racism, would be launched on November 7th should Obama lose the popular vote?