Busby 46,585 - Bilbray 37,050 11:57 pm 06/09/06

[JDPriestly]

Francine Busby 46,585 89.8

Brian P. Bilbray 37,050 54.2
U.S. Congress District 50
100.0% ( 500 of 500 ) precincts reporting as of Jun 9, 2006 at 11:57 pm


http://vote.ss.ca.gov/Returns/usrep/5000.htm

[WCGreen]

1. That is the primary results......

The special election is not on there....

These two will face off in November regardless of who won the special election...

[Peace Patriot]

2. You're right. There is NO report on the Special Election, Busby v Bilbray

What's with that? It says (of the Primary) 100% of precincts reporting. Why the blackout on the Special Election? I think this is #8 of the red flags on this election, on a scale of 1 to 10. Clearly, we are looking at a Red Alert! (Red Alert = this election was most likely stolen, get ready to start crunching numbers and raising hell about a recount.)

[WCGreen]

3. More republicans voted than dems.....

It is a GOP enclave and even with all that went wrong, the GOP should have won that race...

They pumped a lot of cash into a seat they should't have had to and still "won" by less than 5%...

I think this is actually more spectacular than the Hackett close call last year in the fact the party was not behind Mean Jean and there was a decided lack of interest from the GOP in that race...

This race, however, was high priority...

[lindisfarne]

5. Calm down. See results (and link) below. this kind of overreacting

is what gets the middle-of-the-roaders thinking that even those with good evidence of election problems are wacko.

There may be legitimate concerns about this race as poll workers took Diebold machines home (for up to a week or two; see bradblog) but the lack of results on the Sec. of State site does not put us into "red alert". For whatever reason (lack of a computer programmer?) it seems the Sec of State site cannot deal with this "special" election.

[lindisfarne]

4. Go here for the run-off results

http://www.sdvote.org/election/congress.xml

BRIAN BILBRAY - REP
69617
49.51%

FRANCINE BUSBY - DEM
63489
45.15%

W. GRIFFITH - IND
5318
3.78%

PAUL KING - LIB
2201
1.57%

=======================
Here are the democratic primary results. If you compare the total in the Run-off for Busby with the total votes for Dems in the primary, it looks like about 14,000 people who weren't voting on the Democratic partisan ballot also voted for Busby. In contrast, Bilbray didn't pick up many votes at all in the run-off, compared to the total votes cast for all Republican candidates in the primary. In other words, only the people who asked for a Republican ballot (for the primary) voted for Bilbray in the run-off.

FRANCINE BUSBY - DEM
46585
89.78%

CHRIS YOUNG - DEM
5304
10.22%

[lindisfarne]

6. there were other republicans running against bilbray in the primary;

did you not see those results? More people who voted in the primary voted a Republican ballot (and thus for a Rep) than a Democrat ballot.
BRIAN P. BILBRAY - REP
37050
54.17%

ERIC ROACH - REP
9465
13.84%

BILL HAUF - REP
8766
12.82%

BILL MORROW - REP
4246
6.21%

HOWARD KALOOGIAN - REP
3284
4.80%

ALAN UKE - REP
1673
2.45%

VICTOR E. RAMIREZ - REP
1256
1.84%

RICHARD LEE EARNEST - REP
960
1.40%

SCOTT ORREN - REP
858
1.25%

SCOTT TURNER - REP
834
1.22%

[Zynx]

7. Exactly. There is nothing fishy about this election at all.

The last polls showed Bilbray ahead and Busby had a world record gaffe and we lost. It's as simple as that.

[Poppyseedman]

8. No, no, no

It can't be as simple as "we lost" There MUST be election fraud. What other answer can there be?

I ask you: "Just how could a democrat lose an election in a heavly favored rethugican district"

:sarcasm:

[BeFree]

11. Nothing fishy, eh?

And just why is it that you can so expertly call that?

Did you first study the kind of voting system? Do you even know?

Do you know the history of the company who made the vote counters?

Do you know what Shamos has said about those counters?

I doubt it.

There are two ways of describing Zincs comments here, one: a pr from bushco, and two: just a fart.

[rhett o rick]

9. Whatever the reason, the Democrats failed there first major test

to regain the HOR. The opponents are will to do what it takes to win each and every seat. Don't look like the Dem's feel the same. Unless the Party gets together with a plan, all is lost. Sorry but I can't get excited by a close loss. We had a close loss in 2000 and in 2004. Probably will again in 2006. By 2008 it will be mute. Once tyranny is established it will be extremely hard to return.

[enough]

10. We did not have a close loss in 2000.

We had a close win. The loss was 5-4 in the Supreme Court.

[rhett o rick]

13. The point is a loss is a loss, whether stolen or whatever, it is a loss. n

[BeFree]

12. Did you ever think?

That maybe the votes were hacked?

Folks, this is a key vulnerability of the pukes - shady elections. There is a boatload of honest evidence detailing republican 'advantages' built into the process of electing.

Where are the pukes who are saying the Dems are equal? You know if they could point to one case of Dems stealing votes, it would be on Faux news! Every gawldurn night! Endlessly.....

There is something really wrong here. Being spineless about the corrupted voting systems and wearing a pink tutu while typing about it on DU, is really quite the rage with wanna be republican leaders.

Don't be like them, puhleeze.

[rhett o rick]

14. Once in a while i think i think.

What is the Democratic Party doing to stop vote hacking? Lots of complaining but what is the strategy?

[high density]

15. From what I've heard it's a "red" district

And the GOP poured $5 million into a race that should have been a gimme to them. Yeah a win would have been great, but given the makeup of the voters there, I think we're doing alright at the moment.