Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

To Believe Bush Won the 2004 Election, You Must Also Believe:

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-21-08 11:19 PM
Original message
To Believe Bush Won the 2004 Election, You Must Also Believe:
Edited on Mon Apr-21-08 11:29 PM by helderheid
* THIS is why I post concerns about voting in ANY state with these machines.

1. That the exit polls were WRONG...

2. That Zogby's 5pm election day calls for Kerry winning
Ohio and Florida and New Mexico and Iowa were
WRONG. He was exactly RIGHT (within 1%) in his final
2000 poll.

3. That Harris's election day polling calling it for Kerry
was WRONG. He was exactly RIGHT (even closer than
Zogby) in 2000.

4. That Incumbent Rule I (undecideds break for the
challenger) was WRONG.

5. That Incumbent Rule II (an incumbent never exceeds
his final polling) was WRONG.

6. That Incumbent Rule III (an incumbent under 50% job
approval will most likely lose) was WRONG.

7. That Greg Palast was WRONG when he said that prior
to the election, that one million votes were stolen from
Kerry. Palast was the ONLY reporter to break the story
that 90,000 blacks in Florida were illegally disenfranchised
in 2000.

8. That it was just a COINCIDENCE that the exit polls
were ACCURATE in states where there WAS a PAPER
TRAIL and WRONG (heavily in favor of Bush) where there
was NO VOTER VERIFIED PAPER TRAIL.

9. That the surge in new young voters had NO positive
effect for Kerry.

10. That Bush BEAT 99-1 pre-election polling odds and
10,000,000-1 post-election exit poll odds in winning
the election.

11. That Kerry did WORSE than Gore against an opponent
who LOST the support of SCORES of Republican
newspapers who were for Bush in 2000.

12. That Bush did better than an 18 national poll average
which showed him tied with Kerry at 47. In other
words, Bush got 80% of the undecided vote to end up
with a 51-48 majority - when ALL professional pollsters
agree that the undecided vote ALWAYS goes to the challenger.

13. That voting machines manufactured and programmed
by Republicans without a no paper trail and
no software publication, and which have been proven by
thousands of computer scientists to be vulnerable in
scores of ways, were NOT tampered with in this election.

14. That people who voted for Bush were not anxious to
speak to exit pollsters in the states that Bush had to win
(like Florida and Ohio) where the exit polls were off, but
wanted to be polled in states that he had sewn up (like
Arizona, Louisiana and Arkansas) where the exit polls were
exactly correct.

15. That Democrats who voted for Kerry were very anxious
to be exit-polled, especially in Florida and Ohio. That accounts
for the discrepancy between the exit polls and the
actual votes in these two critical states.

16. That women were much more likely to be polled early in
the day in Florida and Ohio. That is another reason why the
exit polls were wrong in those states. In those states in
which the exit polls were correct to within one percent,
women did not come out early.

17. That the University of Pennsylvania Professor (trained at
MIT) who calculated the probability of Bush gaining votes
beyond the exit polling margin of error as ONE out of 250
million, does not have any credibility.

18. That network newscasters who claim that those who
consider the possibility of fraud are just wild conspiracy
theorists do not have an agenda.

19. That it is just a coincidence that only since the 2000
presidential election have exit polls failed to agree with the
actual vote - and that Bush won both disputed elections.

20. That exit polls are not to be trusted in the United States,
even though they are used throughout the world to monitor
elections for fraud.

21. That even though more votes were cast than there were
eligible voters in precincts of the critical states, it is not an
important enough an issue to be covered in the media.

22. That the absence of a paper ballot trail for touch screen
computers does not encourage fraud, even though they
have been proven by hundreds of computer experts to be
highly vulnerable to fraudulent attack.

23. That statistical tests which indicate a high probability of
fraud are just conspiratorial junk science.

24. That Bush voters were more reluctant than Democrats
to speak to exit pollsters due to the fact that it was raining
in the East.

25. That Mitofsky, with 25 years of experience, has lost his
exit polling touch.

26. That by disputing the Ukrainian elections, the Bush
administration would base its case on the accuracy of U.S.
sponsored exit polling, while at the same time ignoring exit
polls in the U.S. presidential election, which the media reported
Kerry was winning handily.

27. That Bushs vote tallies could exceed his exit poll percentage
in FL by 4%. Based on 2846 individuals exit polled,
the polling margin of error was 1.84%.
The odds of this occurrence: 1 out of 1667.

28. That Bushs vote tallies could exceed his exit poll
percentage in OH by 3%. Based on 1963 individuals exit
polled, the polling margin of error was 2.21%.
The odds of this occurrence: 1 out of 333.

29. That Bushs vote tallies could exceed his exit poll
percentages in 42 of 50 states - INCLUDING ALL 22
STATES IN THE EASTERN TIME ZONE. The odds of 42 out
of 50 states deviating to Bush: 1 in 1.7 million.

30. That Bushs vote tallies could exceed the margin of
error in 17 states. Not one state vote tally exceeded the
MOE for Kerry. The odds: 1 in 300 trillion.

31 That Bushs vote tallies could exceed his exit poll by
at least 2% in 22 states. The probability: as close to ZERO
as you can get.

32. That of 88 documented touch screen incidents, 86
voters would see their vote for Kerry come up Bush -
and only TWO from Bush to Kerry.
The probability: as close to ZERO as you can get.

33. That Kerry would win the National Exit Poll of 13,047
(1.0% margin of error) (based on Party-ID weighting) by
50.9% to 47.1% and Bush would win with 50.73% of the
vote. The odds: 1 in 2 trillion.

34. That Kerry would win the 21 million new voters by
3-2 over Bush (59%-39%) and still lose.

35. That Kerry would win in every calculation of the
votes based on the following weighted National Exit Poll
categories:
............ Bush.....Kerry.......Nader
GENDER...... 48.22% 50.78% 1.00%
EDUCATION..48.05% 50.21% 1.17%
INCOME...... 48.12% 51.42% 0.95%
RACE......... 47.86% 50.94% 1.00%
AGE........... 48.17% 50.53% 1.00%
PARTY-ID... 47.77% 50.69% 0.92%
IDEOLOGY... 48.15% 49.85% 1.00%
RELIGION.... 47.90% 50.85% 1.18%
MILITARY.... 47.62% 51.20% 1.00%
DECIDED..... 47.95% 51.23% 0.54%
ISSUES...... 47.92% 50.80% 1.28%
REGION...... 47.95% 50.53% 1.00%
VOTED 2000. 47.09% 50.90% 1.19%
AVERAGE..... 47.91% 50.76% 1.02%

36. That 99% of 50,000 reported voting machine
anomalies, glitches and other incidents favored Bush,
but it was all just a big coincidence.

37. That the USCountVotes.org document, signed by Dr.
Freeman and 10 other Mathematics/Statistics Professors
and researchers from major universities around the
country, which concludes that the exit polls were right
and the vote counts were wrong, should be discounted
as just another conspiracy theory.

38. That the Final
National Exit Poll (FEP) of 13660 respondents, which was
matched to the recorded vote and had Bush the winner
by 51-48%, had to be accurate. And you must also believe
that the Preliminary Exit Poll (PEP) of 13047 which
had Kerry the winner by 51-48% had to be inaccurate.

39. That if the FEP re-weighted the PEP percentage of
Bush 2000 voters who voted in 2004 (from 41% to 43%)
and also adjusted the corresponding Gore voters (from
38% to 37%), then the re-weighting accurately reflects
the final vote count - which Bush won by 51-48%.
And it would, if Bush 2000 voters did in fact comprise
43% of all 2004 voters (122.26 million). But they didnt,
because the ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM percentage of Bush
2000 voters who could have voted in 2004 was 41.3%
(50.45/122.26). This is the same 41% (rounded?) as
given in the PEP, which Kerry won by 51-48%. And so
even 41.3% is too high, for it assumes that NOT ONE
Bush 2000 voter died prior to 2004, and that EVERY
Bush 2000 voter also voted in 2004. Knowing this is
impossible, why would you believe the FEP that said
Bush won by 51-48%, since this very result assumes an
impossibility?

40. That the 43% (52.57 million) of Bush 2000 voters
who voted in 2004 must be LESS than the total Bush
vote in 2000, since it is obvious that a certain percentage
of Bush 2000 voters have passed on. And we can
also assume that other former Bush voters either could
not or would not vote in 2004. But it wasn't LESS, it was
MORE, so why would you believe it?

41. That the 43% statistic is accurate since Bush won by
51-48% and this weighted result assumes 43%. But for
this result to be true, then you must also believe that
Bush had at least two million more votes in 2000 than
the 50.45 million he was credited with. But we know this
is not true, so why would you believe it?

42. That the published U.S. annual death rate of 0.87%
is incorrect, because if it were true, then it follows that
about 3.5% of the population dies during each four year
period. Therefore, Bush must have received at least 54.3
million votes in 2000 (52.57+1.75), if we assume that
1.75 million (or 3.5%) of Bush voters in 2000 passed on.
This is a necessary condition in order to believe the 43%
statistic. But Bush only received 50.45 million votes, so
why would you believe it?

43. That Kerry won only 51% of the female vote, although
the PEP had him winning by 54-45%. Gore won 54% of females
in 2000. So why would you believe the FEP?

44. That the FEP Party ID weights were 37% Democrat/37%
Republican/ 26% Independents, while the PEP had it 38/35/
27 - virtually the same as the final exit poll Party_ID demographic
in the prior three elections.

45. That even though Kerry won at least 4 million more
votes than Bush among the 17% (21 million) voters who did
NOT vote in 2000 (Kerry led 57-41% in the PEP, 54-45% in
the FEP), he would still lose the election. Why would you
believe it?

46. That even though Kerry won the new voters and those
who did not vote in 2000 by at least 4 million (12-8 million),
and that the Bush 2004 vote based on the 43% Bush
2000 voter stat was at least 3 million too high, Bush still
gained 12 million votes from 2000 (from 50 to 62 million).
Why would you believe it?

47. That the Reluctant Bush Responder (RBR) theory is true.
Otherwise, how else could one explain the PEP exit poll
discrepancies which had Kerry winning? But if you believe
RBR, how can you also believe that 43% of Bush 2000 voters
came to the polls in 2004, but only 37% did for Gore? Both
statements CANNOT be true, because they are contradictory,
yet they MUST BOTH both be true if one is to believe
that Bush really did win the election. But why would you
believe it?

Compiled by TruthIsAll on DemocraticUnderground.com
For more information:
2004ElectionTheft.com
DemocraticUnderground.com
shadowbox.i8.com
solarbus.org/election/
freepress.org
gregpalast.com
blackboxvoting.org
truthout.org
commondreams.org
USCountVotes.org
whatreallyhappened.com/2004votefraud.html


http://www.organikrecords.com/corporatenewslies/tobelie...

ETA carriage returns
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
msallied Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-21-08 11:20 PM
Response to Original message
1. Reading this dredges up so much anger and sadness
from 4 years ago. I don't think I could take this if it happens again. I don't think America can...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-21-08 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I am still full of rage.
:mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tribetime Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-21-08 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. I'm with you, I remember ohio all too well
BTW does anyone remember Olbermann the Friday after the election swinging a baseball bat at the end of his show and smashing a doll of george bush out of anger of the stolen election
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-21-08 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. missed that!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msallied Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-21-08 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. I didn't see that, but I do remember...
Bush and Cheney giving a joint victory speech and how they were dripping with self-satisfaction over not only getting the Presidency but also gaining seats in the House and Senate. I threw a cup of juice at the TV.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-22-08 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. Did your TV survive?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tiptoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-22-08 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #1
51. To Believe that Bush Won in 2004, You Must Also Believe that-- Mar 8 2008 Update w more info
Edited on Tue Apr-22-08 07:03 PM by tiptoe
To believe that Bush won in 2004 you must also believe that

Updated March 2, 2008 by TruthIsAll    http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/ToBelieveBushWon...

  1. The media exhaustively analyzed state and national pre-election /exit poll data and the documented evidence of vote suppression and miscounts. But raw exit poll precinct data has never been made public.

  2. There are many explanations as to why the exit polls were wrong: Kerry voters were more approachable than Bush voters to be interviewed; interviewers sought out Kerry voters; returning Gore voters claimed to have voted for Bush in 2000 because they wanted to be associated with the winner; exit polls are not random samples; U.S. exit polls are not designed to monitor election fraud; early exit polling overstated the Kerry vote (women voted early); Republicans voted late; Gore voters defected to Bush at twice the rate that Bush voters defected to Kerry, etc. But none of these explanations are supported by the evidence. In fact, they have all been refuted.

  3. The votes were fairly counted. But 2004 U.S. Census data indicates that 125.7 million votes were cast as opposed to the 122.3m recorded. And investigative reporter Greg Palast presented government data which documented 3 million uncounted votes.

  4. Democrats failed to attract first-time voters. But according to the National Exit Poll, since 1992 the Democrats have won first-time voters by a 14% average margin. Ruy Teixeira wrote about it in The Emerging Democratic Majority.

  5. Bushs 48% Election Day approval rating (Image) was not a major factor. But since 1976 all presidential incumbents with less than 50% approval lost re-election (Ford, Carter, Bush I) while those above 50% won (Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton). And there was a near-perfect 0.87 correlation (Image) between Bushs monthly approval rating and the average national poll. The correlation was confirmed when Kerry won the 12:22am National Exit Poll by 51-48%. According to Frank Newport, Editor in Chief of the Gallup Poll, The president's job approval rating is an important indicator of re-election probabilities. But like so much else in this election, this measure isn't giving us a great deal of direction right now. Bush's job approval has slipped to 48% among national adults and is thus below the symbolically important 50% point. If we take that 50% line seriously, then Bush is in a less-than-auspicious position. No president since Harry Truman has won re-election with a job approval rating below 50%.

  6. Bush gained 9% over his 2000 vote in heavily Democratic urban locations and lost 3% in highly Republican small towns and rural areas.
    But that is an Urban Legend.


  7. There is no evidence that the vote count was corrupted. So how did Bush win 51.5% of the first 115.8m recorded votes while Kerry won 54.6% of the final 5.3m, a 500,000 vote decline in the Bush mandate.

  8. Final pre-election polls did not match the exit polls. But after undecided voters were allocated, pre-election state (Kerry 47.9-Bush 46.9%) and national (Kerry 47.2-Bush 46.9%) polls closely matched the national (50.8-48.2%) and state (51.8-47.2%) exit polls. The final Zogby battleground state polls (Image) showed Kerry leading in 9 critical states.

  9. Bogus assumptions were used in the pre-election Election Model simulation model which forecast that Kerry would win 320-337 electoral votes (Image). But the only input assumption was that Kerry would capture at least 60% of the undecided vote. The Election Model popular and electoral vote projections were confirmed by state and national exit poll analysis in the Interactive Election Simulation Model (Image).

  10. There is no evidence that undecided voters break for the challenger. Historical evidence indicates that undecided voters break for the challenger over 80% of the time - especially when the incumbent is unpopular - and Bush had a 48.5% average approval rating. World-class pollsters Harris and Zogby reported their late polling indicated Kerry would win 60-80% of the undecided vote. According to the Gallup poll: In the final USA TODAY/CNN/GALLUP poll, President Bush held a 49-47 edge over Sen. John Kerry when the undecided voters were not allocated to a particular candidate. When Gallup, using a statistical model that assumes that 9 of 10 of those voters would support Kerry, allocated the voters, the poll ended as a dead heat with each candidate garnering 49%. The Gallup allocation formula is based on analyses of previous presidential races involving an incumbent.

  11. Bush was leading in the final pre-election polls. Not so. Kerry led Bush by less than 1% in the state-weighted average vote and held a 3% lead after allocation of undecided voters. Kerry and Bush were tied at 47% based on the final national 18-poll average.

  12. Non-response bias in the exit polls (Image) was the reason why 43 states red-shifted to Bush. But 3 million votes (mostly from heavily Democratic minority districts) were never counted - and Kerry won 70-75%. Response rates were lowest in Kerry urban strongholds.

  13. It was just a coincidence that Oregon was the only battleground state which shifted to Kerry. But Oregon is also the only state which votes exclusively by paper mail ballots, and the shift was a fraction of one percent. Any discrepancy would be minimal and favor either Bush or Kerry.

  14. There is nothing suspicious in the fact that six of the eight states which deviated to Kerry from the exit polls were strong Bush states. But the exit poll discrepancies were all within the margin of error.

  15. Final exit polls are always matched to the recorded vote. But this assumes a fraud-free election and no uncounted votes. And since 2000, elections have been anything but fraud-free. Therefore, the final exit polls (state and national) cannot be correct.

  16. There are reasonable explanations why Kerry led the National Exit Poll by 51-48% at 4pm (8349 respondents), 7:30pm (11027) and 12:22am (13047) and Bush won the 2pm Final NEP (13660) by 51-48%. But why do they defy the Law of Large Numbers and the Central Limit Theorem?

  17. The margins of error used to calculate probabilities (Image) of exit poll discrepancies were too low. But even assuming a 60% cluster effect, the probabilities were near zero. Assuming a zero cluster effect, WPE-adjusted state exit poll discrepancies (Image) exceeded the MoE in 29 states for Bush and just one for Kerry. Assuming a 30% cluster, the margin of error in was exceeded in 24 states for Bush. Composite (12:22am) exit poll discrepancies exceeded the margin of error in 16 states for Bush; none for Kerry.

  18. There is nothing suspicious about the fact that all 21 Eastern Time Zone states red-shifted from the exit poll in favor of Bush. But 14 deviated beyond the margin of error with virtually ZERO probability.

  19. Exit polls are not true random samples. But Edison-Mitofsky state in the NEP Methods Statement that respondents were randomly-selected and the overall margin of error was 1%.

  20. Bush voters were reluctant to respond to exit pollsters. But this was contradicted by the Final Exit Poll, which stated that Bush 2000 voters comprised 43% of the respondents, as compared to 37% for Gore voters. It was also contradicted by a linear regression (Image) analysis: non-response rates increased going from the strongest Bush states to the strongest Kerry states which suggests that non-responders were Kerry voters.

  21. The Final Exit Poll was correct in matching to the Bush 51-48% win. But the 43/37 weights indicate that either Bush voters were over-polled or the Final was rigged a classic Hobson Choice. In any case, the rBr hypothesis was debunked.

  22. False recall (of Gore voters) is a valid explanation for the Final NEP Voted in 2000 weights. But Bush 2000 voters could not have comprised 43% (52.6m) of the 122.3m votes recorded in 2004; Bush only had 50.5m votes in 2000. Approximately 2.5m Bush 2000 voters died prior to the 2004 election and at least 2m did not vote, so 46m was the maximum Bush 2000 voter turnout in 2004 (a 37.6% weighting). The Voted in 2000 question was asked of 3200 of the total 13047 respondents. How come the majority of the 10,000 respondents( who were not asked how they voted in 2000) claimed to have voted for Kerry? Why would they lie?

  23. Although the Final NEP Bush/Gore weightings were impossible, the DU Game thread showed that Bush could have achieved his vote assuming feasible weights. But to compensate for the feasible weights, Bush vote shares had to be inflated to implausible levels to match the recorded vote.

  24. This is how Bush won by 3 million votes: 14.6% of Gore voters defected to Bush in 2004; only 7.2% of Bush voters defected to Kerry; Kerry won just 52.9% of new voters. But according to the NEP, Kerry captured 10% of Bush 2000 voters while Bush won just 8% of Gore voters; Kerry won 57% of new voters and 71% of Nader voters.

  25. False recall is a valid argument to explain the Final NEP 43/37 weights. But false recall is not a factor in pre-election polls. And the pre-election polls (after undecided voters were allocated) matched the exit polls.

  26. An NES study suggests that a significant percentage of Gore voters told exit pollsters they voted for Bush in 2000. But only 3200 of 13047 NEP respondents were asked how they voted in 2000. Kerry won the other 10,000 by 51-48%.

  27. Returning Gore voters misrepresented their 2000 vote because they wanted to be associated with the winner Bush. But Bush had 48% approval on Election Day. The majority of new voters were Democrats and Independents; they gave Bush a 25-30% approval (Image) rating. And Gore was the official winner in 2000 - by 540,000 votes.

  28. Bush found 12 million new voters in 2004. But simple arithmetic shows he needed more than 16 million. Bush had 50.5m recorded votes in 2000. Approximately 2.5m died (assuming 1.2% annual voter mortality) and 2.4m did not vote in 2004 (assuming 95% turnout). Therefore, approximately 45.6m Bush 2000 voters turned out to vote. Bush needed over 16 of 25m new voters (64%) to go from 45.6m to 62m. But according to the 12:22am National Exit Poll, he won 41% a 23% difference.

  29. Bush won by 3 million votes. But how could that be? According to the NEP, Kerry won 57% of new voters (first-timers by 55-43% and other new voters by 61-37%); he won returning Nader voters by 70-20%. Kerry won 10% of Bush voters while just 8% of Gore voters defected to Bush.

  30. The sensitivity analysis (Image) which showed that Kerry won all plausible scenarios is overkill and does not prove anything. But given the adjusted 12:22am Composite vote shares and assuming 100% Bush 2000 voter turnout, Kerry needed just 73% turnout of Gore voters to tie Bush. Gore voter turnout had to be 64% in order for Bush to match his recorded vote margin. Using pristine, non-adjusted exit poll shares, required Gore voter turnout was even lower than above.

  31. Bushs share of females increased by 4.2%. But how did his share of the male vote decline by 0.2%? Females voted 54-45% for Kerry; Blacks voted over 90% for him; he won Independents by 52-44%.

  32. Bush won Ohio. But there is plenty of documented evidence of uncounted and switched votes, besides massive voter disenfranchisement. Two election workers were convicted of rigging the recount. Fifty-six of 88 county voting records were destroyed. The final Zogby poll had Kerry leading by 50-47%. Kerry led the pristine Ohio exit poll by 54.1-45.9% (based on the average 10.9% precinct WPE). He even led the adjusted 12:22am Composite by 52.1-47.9%.

  33. Bush won Florida by 52-47% (a 368,000 vote margin) even though the Democrats had a 41-37% registration advantage in Touch Screen (TS) counties and a 42-39% edge in Optical Scan (OS) counties. But Kerry won TS counties (3.86mm votes) by 51-47% and Bush won OS counties (3.43mm votes) by a whopping 57-42%. The Final Zogby Florida pre-election poll had Kerry leading by 50-47%. Kerry won the exit poll by 50.9-48.3%. In 2000, Gore won 70% of 180,000 uncounted under/over votes. If counted, he would have won by at least 60,000 votes. Dan Rather's expos on voting machines proved that poor-quality paper used in Florida punch card machines was a major cause of spoilage in heavily Democratic precincts.

  34. The New York pre-election poll matched the recorded vote (59-40%), while the exit poll was wrong (64.1-34.4%). But even if the exit poll was off (which it wasnt), the 5% discrepancy is not significant. The margin of error for the 600-sample pre-election poll was 4%; there was a 95% probability that Kerry's vote could have been anywhere between 55-63%. Assuming a 30% cluster effect, the exit poll MoE was 3.2%; there was a 95% probability that Kerry's vote was between 60.9-67.3%. Therefore, a Kerry vote in the 60.9-63.0% range would fall within the margin of error of both pre-election and exit poll.

  35. The NY 2004 recorded vote was fraud-free; lever voting machines are foolproof. But this implies that 100% of returning Nader 2000 voters defected to Bush. In 2000, the NY vote was Gore 60.5-Bush 35.4-Nader 4.1. According to the 2004 NEP Composite (12:22am), Kerry won Nader voters by 71-21%; 10% of Bush voters defected to Kerry; 8% of Gore voters defected to Bush. And Kerry did better in NY than he did elsewhere. Kerry won NY by 63-36% using weights based on the NY 2000 recorded vote, assuming his vote shares were two percent higher than in the NEP. Levers are highly vulnerable to fraud. Like touch screens, they dont produce a verifiable paper record. NY votes exclusively on Levers; the WPE was 11.4%. CT, another heavy Lever state, had the second highest WPE (15.7%) of all the states. NY was number four.

  36. Polling data was cherry-picked and assumptions set to favor Kerry. But no assumptions were made in the following four models which used three different sets of exit poll data which included response rates and within precinct error (WPE) provided by exit pollsters Edison-Mitofsky. And they all produced equivalent results. The Exit Poll Response Optimizer confirmed the USCV simulation of 1250 precincts categorized by partisanship. Both models debunked the reluctant Bush responder (rBr) hypothesis.

    The Exit Poll Response Optimizer models used WPE and response rates for:
    1. 1250 precincts categorized by partisanship: Strong Bush, Bush, Even, Kerry, Strong Kerry. Kerry 52.15-Bush 47.85% (2-party)
    2. Location-size categories: Big Cities, Small Cities, Suburban, Small Towns, Rural: Kerry 52.15- Bush 47.85%
    3. The States: Kerry 52.3- Bush 47.7%
    4. National Exit Poll Voted in 2000 category: Kerry 51.9- Bush 48.1%

Also, see: Election Fraud Polling Analysis: Confirmation of a Kerry Landslide

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tiptoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-23-08 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #1
53. Further Confirmation of a Kerry Landslide
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-21-08 11:31 PM
Response to Original message
6. Hillary is a duck hunter.
:D



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tiptoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-26-08 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #6
57. nice job.
...as usual!!! :applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
garthranzz Donating Member (983 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-22-08 12:05 AM
Response to Original message
7. Keep posting and reposting and reposting
Until the whole country gets it.

Retroactive impeachment
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-22-08 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Will do!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tiptoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-23-08 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #7
56. :)
Obama will have interest in turning around the HAVA boondoggle and fraud against the American people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-22-08 09:40 AM
Response to Original message
10. Number 20 is HUUUGE, there's NO way any other country would've gotten away with number 19
Edited on Tue Apr-22-08 09:41 AM by uponit7771
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-22-08 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. I remember when that was the reason the Ukranian elections were overturned. I honestly thought they
were talking about OUR election when those reports came out - I was blown away when they said the Ukraine. Hello?!??!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-22-08 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. Yeap, no international overseer of that election would certify the victory because of exit polls....
...were so off. I just read the line of PEP and FEP....Obama was right and it was right for him to speak up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-22-08 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. I believe the exit polling in the Ukraine was conducted by American companies, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
New Earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-22-08 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
12. the saddest part about 2004
is that the fraud was so much MORE obvious than in 2000, yet the media acted like it never happened, and a majority of Americans either didn't realize that it happened, or were in complete denial :shrug:

IT WAS BLATANTLY OBVIOUS. You don't go to sleep with the exit polls clearly stating that one candidate has won and wake up the next morning and it's the complete opposite. :wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-22-08 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Hey, Faye
:hug:

I woke up, grabbed the paper, and burst into tears. I was so scared they'd steal the election. I tried to keep the machines out of my state. Despite my fears, I had hope that maybe, just maybe, I was wrong. I hated to be proven right. I was so full of dread that day. God, it still makes me teary when I think about it.

The only hope I have for 2008 is if it isn't a close race, like in 2006. Overwhelming numbers is what it will take, but it still won't be fair.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-22-08 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. I thought I followed that election closely but I never saw the list of anomolies. Obama was right
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-22-08 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #12
17. Because media also had a COMPLICIT Dem powerstructure that NEEDED Kerry to lose, too.
Terry McAuliffe ignored the security of the election process in many states he KNEW would be crucial to Dems in 2002 and 2004 - his loyalty and commitment was to preserve the opening for Hillary2008, not Dem candidates in 2002 and 2004.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-22-08 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. TM makes my blood boil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-22-08 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
19. Thank You, thank you!!!
The Selections were fucking stolen!!

:kick: & Recommended
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-22-08 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. I'm disgusted we didn't get this straightened out before 2008.
At least some states improved, but still.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Norrin Radd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-22-08 10:40 AM
Response to Original message
21. And we keep getting new DUers who deny election fraud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-22-08 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. I don't think many DUers deny election fraud.
The only issue I have is claiming that if the candidate they don't like wins, it had to be due to election fraud, even BEFORE the election took place. That kind of statement takes away credibility from all "election fraud" challenges, even those that absolutely have merit (such as in 2000 and 2004).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-22-08 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. I don't believe the 2004 election was stolen for a moment.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry_sbys.htm...

Look at the pre-election polls for a moment. There's not much fishy about the pre-election polls. In fact they predicted exactly what happened. Exit polls, as we found out again this primary season, are flawed in the way they are initially collected. They don't adjust their samples properly until results start coming in and they know more what the electorate looks like. There is nothing inherently that much more accurate about an exit poll than a pre-election poll. Sample size in each state is larger, but not so much larger as to be fool-proof.

If Bush did electoral fraud it was extremely widespread, even into largely Democratic states since there was a shift to Bush in nearly every state with a handful of exceptions. Here:



The blue are shifts to Bush on this map over what he did in 2000. The pink are shifts to Kerry over what Gore did in 2000. In the vast bulk of the counties Bush did slightly better in 2004 than he did in 2000.

I don't doubt there was fraud, but there always is in every election. It's a long tradition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-22-08 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. Did you read the entire list?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-22-08 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. Yes, and I think maybe 10% of it has any merit.
Edited on Tue Apr-22-08 11:11 AM by Zynx
Read what Ruy Teixeira had to say about the exit poll argument: http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/donkeyrising/200...


At a certain point, I have to believe various elements that are boldly asserted so incredibly incorrectly to believe many of the others. Each one of those points is not actually free standing on their own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-22-08 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #25
26. Okat, but it already has me frowning with the title: Do the Exit Polls Indicate Voter Fraud?
Voter Fraud???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-22-08 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #26
27. For God's sake it is the way he decided to word it. Did you read it?
Edited on Tue Apr-22-08 11:12 AM by Zynx
He's not saying voters committed fraud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-22-08 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. Am now - and for God's Sake, words matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-22-08 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. Not all of the time they don't. People word things differently but have the same meaning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-22-08 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #29
30. It absolutely does NOT have the same meaning. Voter Fraud is when fraud is committed by VOTERS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-22-08 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. That certainly wasn't what he was talking about in the article was it?
Edited on Tue Apr-22-08 11:20 AM by Zynx
Obviously he didn't mean it that way. People make mistakes when they write.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-22-08 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #31
33. I understand that. It has been my experience that people who use the term "voter fraud" instead of
"election fraud" when discussing the issue, don't have a firm grasp of the issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-22-08 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #33
34. Instead of trying to dismiss what he is saying out of hand why don't you read what he said about
exit polls in the article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-22-08 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #34
35. I did. He has some good points, however it just doesn't hold up to other articles I've read,
especially Palast.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wiggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-22-08 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
32. That the Ohio Secretary of State, who was also Bushes campaign chairman,
did nothing to disenfranchise voters or to influence recounts.

This is a HUGE failing of our system that a suspicious major election and election process could be so tainted without resolution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
applegrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-22-08 11:47 AM
Response to Original message
36. I believe exit polls were wrong. I believe the "reluctant responder" idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-22-08 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #36
37. Are you serious? And what about the rest?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
applegrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-22-08 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #37
41. Alot of it has to do with exit polls and I say I agree repukes were reluctant
to respond or possibly lied about who they voted for. I'm not saying there wasn't any funny stuff I just think it was the exit polls themselves that were fucked with - giving Kerry an early lead - keeping some democrats home from voting because they assumed he had it locked up.

That is where the trickery is. Faulty exit polls have followed Karl Rove all the way from Texas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-22-08 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #41
44. I'm just not buying it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mindspell Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-22-08 12:13 PM
Response to Original message
38. what will stop the democrats next??
hopefully not ourselves!!!! all the bickering between obama and clinton and their supporters is only weakening the democrats.. divide and conquer, meanwhile the mccain camp can sit back and watch all their work done for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-22-08 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. Welcome to DU!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tiptoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-23-08 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #38
54. hope that, somehow, "it all comes together" nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donheld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-22-08 12:26 PM
Response to Original message
40. Wonderful post thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-22-08 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
42. TIA is a third rate hack with no credibility.
The only person who lost the 2004 election for Kerry was Kerry.

And if he thought any differently, I would hope he would speak up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truebrit71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-22-08 02:18 PM
Response to Original message
43. Excellent, excellent post!
There will always be the deniers but it is all too obvious that 2004 was an even grander theft than 2000....

Why would anyone believe that things will be any different this year? That's why it is SO important to get a nominee and start rallying behind him...top build up his lead to the point that it CAN'T be stolen...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Awsi Dooger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-22-08 03:07 PM
Response to Original message
45. I think #25 is a safe bet
Mitofsky died almost two years ago
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-22-08 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. I didn't know that!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Awsi Dooger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-22-08 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. LOL, yeah you left me a bit of an opening
"has" lost his touch, instead of "had"

That would have thwarted my wisecrack. :)

I hope TIA is doing well and I wish he were still posting here, although I generally disagree with his conclusions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-22-08 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #47
50. Well, to be fair this was written while he was living. :) Thanks for the info!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas Hill Country Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-22-08 03:32 PM
Response to Original message
48. while i mostly agree with you, i would have to point out that there was the largest rural turn out
Edited on Tue Apr-22-08 03:33 PM by Texas Hill Country
in modern history because of the gay marriage ammendments in those states... and most of the polls and exit polls did not and could not have accounted for those.


I am not saying that it was that... but it is a fact, and an alternate explanation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-22-08 05:11 PM
Response to Original message
49. K&R. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tiptoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-22-08 07:33 PM
Response to Original message
52. K & R ! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-23-08 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #52
55. just rec'd yours in ER!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Oct 21st 2014, 07:36 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC