How did the debates affect the outcome of the election? They had a huge effect. First of all, personally speaking, I’ve watched every single debate, talk and analysis in nearly every waking hour since this all started. I go to bed at 1am or 2 am most nights.
There was a before and after effect for a lot of people. Before the debates, Mousavi had a strong chance, at least in Tehran. But it was like a see-change. After the debates, a lot of people who were going to vote for Mousavi came out for Ahmadinejad. A lot of people.
Why? Because of Mousavi’s Rafsanjani connection. And you have to understand something. [Ahmadinejad] sways people. He says certain things — he says certain truths. He is not a thief. He is a horrible, horrible person, but he is not a thief. He says things directly.
So did Ahmadinejad rig the election? Did he steal 15 million votes?Yushenko/Yevtushenko in Ukraine (the Orange Revolution). None of which may matter, because (as with most scandals), it's not the thing itself, but the reaction/cover up which ends up making the difference, and the level of response may cause those who were for Ahmendenijad may decide the price of his victory was too much. It may not happen overnight, but the legitiamacy of his election is tarnished; even if he won.
The Shah wasn't ousted for a single event, but because of a pattern of behavior over years. The curate who run the country have managed to seem above the fray (while waging their own, sometimes vicious) politicking for place). The way they have handled this calls all of that into question.
But if you consider Karroubi's vote in his strong provinces (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/iran-does-have-some-fishy-numbers.html), it seems likely to me there's something dodgy going on (even if Ahmadinejad would still win the overall election).
Actually, I'm wondering if that cartoon refers to the most recent U.S. Presidential election. (Not that _I_ think any but the 2000 one was questionable enough to justify Street Demonstrations, but....)
2000 didn't deserve street demonstrations because of the election irregularities, but because of what the Republicans did to secure the victory.
The shennanigans in 2004, those were different. If I'd been in Ohio, I'd have been in the streets. If I'd voted against Thune, I'd have been the streets.
The structural voting frauds of the Republicans are worse than those they allege against the Democratic Party. The frauds they've perpetrated have been designed to keep those who were eligible to vote from being able to.
The understanding in US political operative circles is that Democrats cheat by including ineligible voters, the Republicans by excluding eligible ones.
The undersanding is, so far as I've been able to see, false.
There aren't any signs (even when the Bush White House was pusing for it) that this is the case. The ACORN flap is a classic example. The laws in many states require a person collecting registrations to take every one offered to them.
Republicans have been convicted for organized campaigns of throwing away applications they didn't like.
ACORN obeyed the laws, and they are cited as the classic example of "organized vote fraud". A Bush operative was convicted of phonejamming, to prevent voters from being able to get to the polls.
Local spots of fraud/election irregularities, yes, but I still think the "Don't re-count the votes and find out what the electorate actually wanted" bit (which I continue to regard as an irregularity) is the only one that deserved nation-wide Demonstrations. The rest... just careful attention to legal/legislative and ballot-box action.
I viewed the cartoon as more of a triple entrendre. First, a nod to the unfortunate fact that Americans did not take to the streets in protest when there were election irregularities in 2000 and 2004 (and even now in the Minnesota senatorial race). Second, as a nod to the Iranians for demonstrating for a fair ballot recount and doing what Americans failed to do. And third, as a way of saying that even though they do want free and fair elections, the Iranians do not want to be seen as embracing an American, westernized way of life (and most likely, that the Iranians want us to stay out of their affairs, letting them settle their own election issues). Granted, just my interpretation, but I think he managed to convey many messages in what on the surface appeared to be a simple cartoon.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-06-16 07:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-16 08:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-16 09:01 pm (UTC)Will also pointed to Conversations with Grandma
How did the debates affect the outcome of the election?
They had a huge effect. First of all, personally speaking, I’ve watched every single debate, talk and analysis in nearly every waking hour since this all started. I go to bed at 1am or 2 am most nights.
There was a before and after effect for a lot of people. Before the debates, Mousavi had a strong chance, at least in Tehran. But it was like a see-change. After the debates, a lot of people who were going to vote for Mousavi came out for Ahmadinejad. A lot of people.
Why?
Because of Mousavi’s Rafsanjani connection. And you have to understand something. [Ahmadinejad] sways people. He says certain things — he says certain truths. He is not a thief. He is a horrible, horrible person, but he is not a thief. He says things directly.
So did Ahmadinejad rig the election? Did he steal 15 million votes?Yushenko/Yevtushenko in Ukraine (the Orange Revolution). None of which may matter, because (as with most scandals), it's not the thing itself, but the reaction/cover up which ends up making the difference, and the level of response may cause those who were for Ahmendenijad may decide the price of his victory was too much. It may not happen overnight, but the legitiamacy of his election is tarnished; even if he won.
The Shah wasn't ousted for a single event, but because of a pattern of behavior over years. The curate who run the country have managed to seem above the fray (while waging their own, sometimes vicious) politicking for place). The way they have handled this calls all of that into question.
That will have powerful effects down the road.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-17 05:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-16 09:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-16 09:54 pm (UTC)The shennanigans in 2004, those were different. If I'd been in Ohio, I'd have been in the streets. If I'd voted against Thune, I'd have been the streets.
The structural voting frauds of the Republicans are worse than those they allege against the Democratic Party. The frauds they've perpetrated have been designed to keep those who were eligible to vote from being able to.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-17 03:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-17 03:16 am (UTC)There aren't any signs (even when the Bush White House was pusing for it) that this is the case. The ACORN flap is a classic example. The laws in many states require a person collecting registrations to take every one offered to them.
Republicans have been convicted for organized campaigns of throwing away applications they didn't like.
ACORN obeyed the laws, and they are cited as the classic example of "organized vote fraud". A Bush operative was convicted of phonejamming, to prevent voters from being able to get to the polls.
There's a big difference.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-16 10:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-16 10:20 pm (UTC)