You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #60: It's possible... [View All]

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
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-02-04 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #59
60. It's possible...
...that some of the red shift was due to R's giving the wrong answer, or to other factors, and I think it's good journalistic and academic practice to ask such questions. (What are the factors that could have screwed up the exit polls?) But no one has presented any FACTS to indicate any problem whatsoever. It's all just speculation--and sounds so much like Dick Cheney talking about Iraq and 9/11 (i.e., utter crap, but not innocent utter crap--utter crap that is cleverly manufactured to cover up crimes) that I think it should be put aside until and unless someone comes up with some evidence.

As Freeman discusses, exit polls are used worldwide to verify elections. No evidence of any kind has been presented to question their results in this case.

I think jwmealy gets himself into a corner that he really doesn't want to be in, arguing that R's might have given false answers to exit pollsters, and that Bush Inc. doesn't have the resources to pull off a nationwide vote heist. (What else might they have been planning for, by keeping control of the vote tabulation source code and insisting on no paper trail?)

jwmealy's study concentrates on the Electoral Vote part of the fraud plan--the most important thing Bush Inc. had to do (win the EV), and I think it will be very useful in understanding what they did and where, to win the EV. I think where he gets himself in a tangle is in defending his study as the only thing that Bush Inc. wanted (the EV)

But Bush Inc. had a second problem: getting Bush a decent popular vote. I'm sure it would have been unacceptable to the master planner of this election fraud to have a result like '00--Gore winning the popular vote, Bush getting the EV (via the Supreme Court). They didn't want any kind of controversy like that (and why let it happen, if you have control of all the vote tabulators?) They wanted to talk about a "mandate" the next day--so they had to have the pop. vote, too.

Bev Harris (blackboxvoting.org), Chuck Herrin (chuckherrin.com), and the Johns Hopkins study (http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2003/0725diebold.html ) all establish how insecure and hackable this voting system is. One person well-placed (or with a backdoor in; or with wireless access), and a line or two of code. It absolutely would NOT have taken a big operation with lots of people and money. (This is one reason I'm not crazy about the Wayne Madsen allegation--the $29 million check, etc., and FBI/CIA operatives working for Bush Inc.--it just wasn't necessary. Not to say they didn't set it up, just in case, though.)

So requirement #2 (the pop. vote) had to involve manufacturing or stealing votes in multiple places, wherever the risk of detection had been minimized. And this is just what the Berkeley study shows in FLA--Bush Inc. either manufacturing votes for Bush or stealing votes from Kerry (100,000 to 200,000 or more votes) in the three biggest FLA Democratic counties.

The fraud doesn't have to involve ALL states or even the majority of states (although it could have, without that much difficulty). The evidence of weird anomalies, and imposssible numbers, in the Bush/Kerry totals seems to be coming from about 15 states, OH and FLA among them. But only certain states are right now getting intense analysis.

A few states with provable electronic fraud (whether for the EV or the pop. vote) will be sufficient to call the entire election into question. By provable, I mean acceptable in a court of law--and statistical studies ARE acceptable, and are used, for instance, in financial cases where pertinent documents have been shredded (no paper trail situations).

Freeman's study reveals four states (of the 11 he studied) wherein the Exit Poll data vs. the Republican-controlled electronic "result" shows a change in the outcome from Kerry (Exit Poll) to Bush (electronic "result") in the EV. (OH, New Mex, Nevada and Iowa.) With those 4 states, Kerry won the EV. (He also shows that in 10 of the 11 states, the Exit Poll vs. electronic "result" favoring Bush is impossible.)

And this is where OH becomes really important.

Fraud plan requirement #3 was the vote suppression in OH and FLA--to have a place, all prepped, and controlled by partisan Republican election officials, where the election SEEMS to come down to a relatively few votes (the "provisional" votes in OH).

Cobb and the Greens are wisely going for a full recount in Ohio. God knows what that will turn up. They are already pointing to weirdness in the totals of a judicial election, where an unknown Dem judicial candidate pulled far more votes than Kerry--as evidence of electronic fraud. (Jesse Jackson talks about this in his recent interviews.)

I think the Mealy study (and others) will be important in understanding, and making the case for, what happened in OH. (First, they wanted those EV's. Second, they wanted to pad Bush's pop. vote--and studying this in the broad context of the stolen election is helpful.)

Now the Berkeley study seemed to be saying that they didn't find the same kind of phantom Bush votes in OH as in FLA (by comparing the electronic vote to traditional voting methods). (--although the NC study found just that--a big descrepancy between the absentee ballot vs. electronic vote). I will check the Berkeley study to find out exactly what it says.

But perhaps in OH--a mixed bag of election systems--the intense vote suppression (of various kinds) took care of that potential discrepancy (paper or other traditional methods vs. electronic).

There is a lot of work still to be done, obviously. I hope my laying it out like this--in a working hypothesis--is helpful.

Fraud plan requirement #4 was public perception--and the TV networks were nicely helpful by starting to mix the Republican-controlled electronic "results" in with the Exit Poll data sometime between 4 pm and 6 pm on election night. This effecively hid Kerry's big numbers in the Exit Polls. And this, I think, is why we had no big Ukraine-type reaction by Kerry voters that night or in the days that followed.

The networks failed to disclose that they had polluted the Exit Poll data (showing a big Kerry win) with the electronic "results" (showing a Bush win). Kerry voters DIDN'T KNOW this. They (me included--for a couple of hours anyway) believed that Bush had somehow pulled off a win late in the day. Neither I nor any other observer knew what the networks had done (mixing the numbers). (In the Ukraine, they immediately knew that something was wrong--precisely because the EXIT POLLS told them so.)

This has been THE most astonishing journalistic disaster that I have ever seen--and we've had some doozies.

In addition to the analytical and vote suppression evidence--which is getting to be overwhelming--there is our intuitive feel for what happened in the campaign, and on Nov. 2-- that our democracy movement in fact SUCCEEDED in ousting Bush Inc., and electing Kerry--in the most amazing presidential election victory in our history.

And guess who didn't cover it? And guess who covered up the evidence that it was being stolen from us that very night?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | 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