Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A Caller on the Ed Schultz Show Today Asked Big Eddie if

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 » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
JoMama49 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 11:38 PM
Original message
A Caller on the Ed Schultz Show Today Asked Big Eddie if
anyone had brought up the simple math that, according to the certified '04 vote, * got 23% more votes than he did in '00. In other words, even though his approval ratings were only 46% right before the election, 23% more people voted for him than did in 2000? The caller asserted that he should have gotten about 46% of the vote, about the same as his approval ratings, yet he got 23% more of the vote than he did in 2000? The caller said it's almost an impossibility. Did anyone else hear this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
KaliTracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 11:42 PM
Response to Original message
1. was there a discussion about this then? what did Ed say back? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoMama49 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Big Eddie has never really been "big" on election fraud issues....
he told the caller he hadn't heard it put quite like that, but had to hang up and go to a break, so there really wasn't a discussion. I got to thinking about it afterwards, though, and wondered if anyone else had thought of this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nite Owl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. And considering that his approval
numbers are now less than what he got elected with, something like 44%, it all just isn't logical. Has a president ever been so much lower on innauguration than what he got on election?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaulVB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 01:23 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. This is the first time in American history
Impossible and unbelievable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaulVB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 01:25 AM
Response to Reply #1
9. This is too hot for Ed
He wants to play it "credible".

He knows fraud took place he just won't put his skin on the line for the truth.

Money is more important. Ed wants a big career as a talk show host, radio and TV.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libertypirate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 11:54 PM
Response to Original message
3. Check this out it gets better....
Edited on Fri Jan-28-05 11:56 PM by libertypirate
This comes from
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KEE501A.html

The Strange Death of American Democracy

In comparison to the election of 2000, there were two dramatic changes in 2004: an increase of some 14 percent in the total number of votes cast (which rose from 105,405,000 in 2000 to 120,255,000 in 2004), and a significant decline in the proportion of votes cast for third-party candidates (which sank from 3,949,000 in 2000 to 1,170,000 in 2004). According to the national exit poll data made available by CNN on the evening of November 2nd, 83 percent of those who voted in 2004 had also voted in 2000. This means, in slightly different terms, that nearly 100 million people who voted in 2000, or close to 95 percent of the 2000 voters, also cast ballots in 2004.<63> In the 2004 exit poll, 13,047 randomly selected respondents stated that they had voted as follows:


Bush Kerry
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Gore 2000 voters: 8% 91%
Bush 2000 voters: 90% 10%
Other 2000 voters: 17% 64%
New voters: 41% 57%

Al Gore, remember, won the popular vote in 2000 by almost 544,000 votes (50,999,897 votes to George Bush's 50,456,002). Assuming that the 8 percent of Gore voters who migrated to Bush's camp in 2004 more or less cancel out the 10 percent of Bush-2000 voters who swung to Kerry, one can take the base number of supporters for Bush and Kerry in 2004 as amounting to 95 percent of the Republican and Democratic presidential vote tallies in 2000--or, in round numbers, 48.4 million votes for Kerry and 47.9 million votes for Bush.

If 95 percent of the 3,949,000 who voted for third-party candidates in 2000 also voted in 2004, then given that 64 percent of these people voted for Kerry and 17 percent for Bush, that, in round numbers, would add 2.3 million votes to Kerry's expected total and 600,000 to Bush's, raising them to 50.7 million for Kerry and 48.5 million for Bush.

Add in the 20.2 million new voters, 57 percent of whose ballots, according to the exit poll, went to Kerry, and 41 percent to Bush. That means 11.5 million additional votes for Kerry, and 8.3 million additional votes for Bush. The final expected total comes out to 62.2 million votes for Kerry, and 56.8 million expected votes for Bush.

Compare these numbers to the official results: 61,194,773 votes (or 51 percent of the total votes cast) for George W. Bush, and 57,890,314 (or 48 percent) for John Kerry. The discrepancies are striking: Bush appears to have received 4.4 million more votes than he should have, and Kerry 4.3 million fewer than he should have.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. Excellent article; all should read this and pass along. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
high density Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 12:04 AM
Response to Original message
5. I can't explain it myself
Edited on Sat Jan-29-05 12:04 AM by high density
Where were all of these nuts the first time Dumbya ran?

But I think Bush's approval rating was higher than 46% on Nov. 2nd, it was somewhere right around 49 or 50%.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
candice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. As Zogby said on Charlie Rose...this president defied logic and history
...because his job approval rating and the number of people who thought the country was headed in the wrong direction argued against a win. Zogby also wasn't prepared for entire states to flip (from Kerry to Bush) at the end of the day (1 A.M. figures?).
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 Wed Apr 16th 2014, 12:20 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform 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