Reply #182: hmm...

[OnTheOtherHand]

If you think about it, and if you check the record, I usually don't say anything when someone says that the election was stolen. I even generally don't say anything when someone says 'anyone with half a brain realizes that the election was stolen' (a pretty close paraphrase of a post I saw yesterday on GD) -- dangerous though I think that notion is.

So it seems to me that instead of supporting one faulty assertion, you're offering another one. OK, I resort to hyperbole too. But the way this thread has gone, I don't think any more hyperbole is needed right now! Yes, when people say they're sure that Kerry won, I sometimes ask why they are sure.

"And in reading your remarks in your earlier posts on this topic, you are suggesting that to 'prove' one way or the other, we need to examine every precenct and every County in the state of Ohio."

I don't know where I've suggested that, either (and I'm not sure what you mean by "examine"). Maybe if you work from my actual words, things will go better.

I agree that it is hard to "prove" much, if anything, from vote totals at the county level. However, if (for instance) 50,000 Ohio votes were stolen on DREs, while the punch card counts were relatively accurate, that would be pretty obvious from county-level returns. Some things are easier to detect after the fact than others, even if the evidence doesn't rise to the level of proof.

I don't think that the results in New Mexico necessarily prove anything about "the Powers that Be," but I do think it's clear that a lot of people's votes (or intended votes) weren't counted. I think Kerry may have won New Mexico if the machines worked right. I think Jennings certainly would have won Florida 13 if the machines worked right. It's not all just an undifferentiated blur.