Subject: Bush is ILLIGITIMATE. Could NOT win without fraud. Challenge me

[autorank]

I believe this and I’ve said it many times BUT it finally made complete sense after I read a post by DUer Anaxarchos. This is his analysis and the quotations are his words. It is well worth the read! You’ve seen all the charts and heard the debate on statistics. This is just plain political reality and logic.

There is no way the Republicans could have won given the following.

1) Republican Problems.

The Republicans faced two problems in 2004. Gore won more votes in 2000, creating a motivated Kerry base and the Nader vote was headed to Kerry. Given this and Bush’s falling poll numbers, Rove developed a grand strategy:

“The theory was that by using the patriotic wind of 9/11 at their backs and by focusing the Power of The Presidency, Republicans could chip away at the conservative edges of traditionally Democratic constituencies. As the election approached, it became clear that the impact of Iraq and the faltering economy (particularly in potential battlegrounds like Ohio and Pennsylvania) had undone that "strategy". The situation left few good GOP alternatives”

2) Rove’s Ugly Alternatives

Battle of Attrition. A battle of attrition “is typically fought by the numbers (i.e. money, phone calls, response rates, etc.). In 2004, the Democrats had nearly as much money to spend and were highly motivated. They had already won the battle for registration and, historically, the Republicans have only been able to better mobilize a smaller constituency (i.e. extract a higher percentage turnout from a smaller number of total partisans that could theoretically be mobilized).” This battle was never fully engaged.

Winning the Undecideds. This was considered but Rove rejected it as a major strategy. “This was openly advocated by several Republican "strategists" and was proposed through the mechanism of swinging Bush's position "to the center". The interesting thing was that this was openly opposed by Rove. The basis of his opposition was that the electorate was already very polarized and that the hit rate among the "undecideds" would be too low.”

Capturing the 3-4 Million Evangelicals Who Sat Out 2000. “This constituency was the ONLY rapidly mobilizable and sizable group within the Republican constituencies which COULD be brought to the 2004 elections, thus justifying the "gamble" according to Rove. By this mechanism (perhaps as many as 3 million votes), the Republicans could just offset the Democratic plurality of 2000, the Nader vote, and a modest Democratic swing of the tiny "middle". Because this strategy was thought to be disproportionately effective in certain battleground states (Florida, Missouri, and a few others), it was thought that it could gain near parity or even a tiny plurality in the popular vote and that it could be focused geographically to win a narrow victory in the electoral vote.”

3) Roves Last Gasp: The Evangelical Strategy that Did Not Work

“First, instead of 110 to 112 million votes as was expected in a "rerun of 2000", the turnout produced nearly 123 million votes, effectively swamping the Rovian strategy with a much bigger "middle". Second, Bush achieved, not narrow parity, but a 3 million vote majority in the popular vote. Some Republicans were "stunned" and this accounts for the claims of a "landslide", etcetera, immediately following the elections. Of course the election did not break any ground historically in presidential races (it was in fact a very close race), but what was really being referred to was a 3 million vote majority where no such vote could exist.”

“This "what if" is probably the closest to reality that could be proposed and the irony is that it is supported by the 12:22 AM exit polls (Kerry 51%).. In fact, it is not so much that the exit polls suggest "fraud" so much as they support a logical understanding of an election which can not achieve that outcome WITHOUT fraud.’

And that’s it.

They couldn’t and didn’t win the “war of attrition.” We had too much money and a strong organization (remember!).

They couldn’t and didn’t win the “undecidededs.” We know that for a fact.

And the 3-4 million evangelicals they brought out couldn’t be the “kill shot” when the vote total went from 112 million to 123 million.

It was “an election which can not achieve that outcome WITHOUT fraud.

Republicans do you best, it's an air tight case.

[Cha]

1. Of course, * is a Fraud..who's squatting

in the white house..only it's "illegitimate". :)

[zann725]

50. Of course he's just a "squatter" who doesn't even merit an Impeachment.

Like an actor who sneaks on stage WITHOUT casting appoval of the Director, just "being there" does NOT grant an "Actor" the RIGHT to play the part...for more than the few moments it takes the Director to have the fraud removed from stage.

As the Bard said: "All the world's a stage..."

[In Truth We Trust]

2. Paper ballots NOW!!! Hand counts NOW!!! Impeachment NOW!!! nt

[ClassWarrior]

3. Awesome analysis.

I'm having a meeting with a friend and former Kerry staffer tomorrow. I'm going to ask her for her reaction.

NGU.

[autorank]

9. Wow

This is a real gem. I found it on a thread in the Elections forum. Here's the complete post, although I think this summary makes the point you want to make
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=395353&mesg_id=396261

Anaxarchos doesn't post much but when he shows up, it's always highly informative and insightful.

Hope the Kerry folks like it. Tell them the guy who posted this hung 500 Kerry-Edwardshangers on homes in No. VA for GOTV the day before the election (a record, only because nobody told me to stop!) and was a poll watcher (my daughter also worked for him full time for 3 months!).

[ClassWarrior]

26. Awesome volunteer work.

My friend was a campaign staffer - not big potatoes - but she definitely saw things that you and I didn't. So it'll be interesting to get her perspective. I'll keep you posted.

NGU.

[JAbuchan08]

4. Hasn't it long been established that a Bush victory was a statistical

impossibility.

I just hope that someday this will be *proven* in the sense that inside knowledge comes out.

[autorank]

12. Yes, extremely improbable. This is the political corollary to the stats.

The stats have been carried forth by TruthIsAll, eomer, and others if we get into the DU way back machine. Academics and others have done this work as well. The arguments are overwhelming.

The Unanswered Question: Who Really Won in 2004.

This analysis is the political argument based on numbers but not reliant on a statistical debate. It's straight forward and, in my mind, very clear and compelling.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pacifist Patriot]

40. If not a statistical impossibility, certainly a

"highly improbable to the point of being virtually absurd." How's that for hedging bets against absolute statements. ;)

[NVMojo]

5. makes total sense to me ...paper ballots now!!!

[jarnocan]

7. but if Tom Feeney has his way (PETITION!)

the paper trail may be used as toilet paper at the local political opearative discretion.
Do something about it PLEASE http://vvlobbydays.blogspot.com there is a petition by Vote Trust, check it out, and links to lots of related stuff.
http://www.congressweb.com/cweb4/index.cfm?orgcode=VTUSA&hotissue=1 direct link to petition

[autorank]

11. Done again. It's very important to send these emails NOW!

:dem:

[autorank]

14. ...hand counts, witnessed by all, stored forever under serious security

Why is this so hard. It should be our party platform:

We must establish an honest vote for elected officials to be legitimate.

The only honest vote involves ballots that are always in the hands of our election officials as observed by partisans and members of the public.

Counted in full view of everybody, reported in public. And tabulated based on those reports -- by the voting officials and any members of the public.

Accommodations for the handicapped occur without taking away the paper ballot.

Free, fair, clean and totally transparent

[BeFree]

6. But, but, but

The final exit polls showed * winning.

Surely the free press did carefully examine all these items, and surely if they agreed they would be calling for his skin.

Actually, this country has billions of closet gay-haters who decided, at the last minute, to vote to keep gays out of the White House.

Besides, the republicans think * is a hero, and all them couldn't be wrong?

OK, lets say you are right, that there was fraud.... how in the world could they committ so much fraud? They would have had to steal 8 million votes. How'd they do that?

[jarnocan]

8. is this joke?

about Rove and G/G, John boy Roberts and the girlie cowboy man? The mainstream media? I also have the excellent Robert Koehler and Jim Lampley articles linkded, that discuss the Mainstream Media's lack of attention to detail. http://vvlobbydays.blogspot.com 2 current petitions to Support HR550!!!! please.

[autorank]

10. haha

Maybe it was reluctant Bush phantom responders(rBpr).

"How'd they do that?" is a subject for a future post. Besides, if you find someone has broken into your home and stolen a bunch of stuff, do you question the fact that a theft took place if you don't know how they did it. The point is it happened by this logic.

The question is, how could they get the votes given these facts. Challenge one or several because together, they make the case.

[bleever]

51. "...if you find someone has broken into your home and stolen

a bunch of stuff, do you question the fact that a theft took place if you don't know how they did it?"

Brilliant!

Would the police and the local paper shake their heads and say, "Mr. Autorank, whether or not your wide-screen plasma TV and autographed Jerry Rice jersey are missing, you cannot deny that we found no broken glass, no fingerprints, and no ski masks. Please come talk to us when you've got some REAL evidence; otherwise you're wasting our time."


:rofl:

[Pacifist Patriot]

41. How was it done? Million dollar question.

I know the internet works because I'm using it but I haven't a clue how it's done. But someone knows....

[gulfcoastliberal]

86. How was it done?! Click this:

http://www.iwilltryit.com/fixed1.htm

[Pacifist Patriot]

145. Awesome! Thank you.

[Peace Patriot]

47. How was it done? Two far rightwing Bushite corporations, Diebold and

ES&S, tabulated 80% of the nation's votes using SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code, with not even a meager paper trail (let alone a real ballot backup) in one third of the country, and woefully inadequate auditing and recounting provisions everywhere.

SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code, in the new, Bush Congress-funded ($4 billion) electronic voting machines and central tabulators that are characterized by lack of security, unreliability and extreme hackability (one hacker, a couple of minutes, leaving no trace). That's really all you need to know. The election SYSTEM was a fraud. But there is so much more.

All other evidence--apart from the results of Diebold's and ES&S's secret formulae--indicates a Kerry win.

--The registration figures (Dem blowout in new voter registration in 2004, nearly 60/40).

--The pre-election opinion polls (Zogby said Bush's numbers were so low he couldn't win).

--The grass roots and the internet nearly matching the Bush Cartel money machine, with small donations, keeping Kerry/Edwards competitive throughout the campaign.

--The exit poll numbers--the real ones, not the final exit poll number, which was DOCTORED by the war profiteering corporate news monopolies to "fit" the result of Diebold's and ES&S's secret formulae. The real exit polls (later admitted) show a 3% Kerry win among the voters who made it to the polling booth (not counting purged voters--a million purged black voters nationwide, according to Greg Palast--and other Bushite vote suppression). Probable Kerry landslide by 4% to 5%.

--The post-election opinion polls (utterly dismal for Bush--49% on the very day of his inauguration, an unprecedented low for a recently elected 2nd term prez, and sinking like the Titanic).

--The issue polls over the last 2 years (60% to 70% of Americans opposed to every major Bush policy, foreign and domestic--the Iraq war, torture, Social Security, the deficit, women's rights, you name it).

--Many statistical studies, showing, for instance, a big discrepancy between the exit polls and Diebold's and ES&S's secretly tabulated results in the east coast time zone (where the main tweak occurred), and in the swing states; big discrepancies in Bush's favor in electronic results vs. paper ballot (including in NC a similar discrepancy in the Senate race, and in FLA 100,000 to 300,000 phantom votes for Bush in the 3 biggest Dem counties); and numerous other statistical improbabilities (with huge odds against them).

--and many other indicators, for instance, 100 newspapers around the country changed their editorial endorsement from Repubs to Dems, endorsing Kerry in 2004.

And this is not even to get into Ohio (massive suppression of Dem votes), the RNC operative who was shredding Dem voter reg cards in west coast states, Jeb Bush's killing of a paper trail requirement in FLA, weird, anomalous numbers in many places, the many reports of touchscreens changing Kerry votes to Bush votes, and all the other evidence.

-------

The question is NOT how they could steal (manufacture, switch, disappear) millions of votes. With electronic voting, it is EASY and UNTRACEABLE (and detectable only by strict audit/recount procedures--utterly lacking in our system--or external evidence like the exit polls). The question is: how is it that the Dem leadership PERMITTED this fraudulent election system to be put into place without one word of objection?

My answer: Serious bipartisan corruption among election officials at the state/local level, in this new billion dollar electronic voting boondoggle. And, too many War Democrats among the leadership, who didn't want a president beholden to the antiwar grass roots, and who like Bush's war, and thus didn't care if Bushites stole the election, and imposed that view from the top down, so that only MAVERICKS like Conyers and Boxer could object, and then, only to the egregious Voting Rights Act violations in Ohio.

NOT ONE OF THEM has objected to--or even raised the issue of--the states signing contracts with Bushite corporations containing "trade secret" vote tabulation. "Trade secret" vote tabulation is not normal. It would be considered outrageously non-transparent in any other democracy on earth--as would the DOCTORING of the exit polls, which are elsewhere used to verify elections and check for fraud. Not here. Here, the exit polls were FALSIFIED in order to ENDORSE the Bushite-controlled "official result."

Corruption, collusion and war profiteering. That's why Dem leaders failed to object to Bushites counting the votes behind the "Wizard of Oz" curtain of secret programming. I considered ignorance and stupidity. I don't believe that any more. I think they know. And I think strongarm tactics have been used to shut people up about it. In California, strongarm tactics were used to forbid Dem legislators to support our good Sec of State Kevin Shelley, who had gone after Diebold election theft machines and sued their asses. A Democrat with close ties to Diebold--Los Angeles county election head Connie McCormack--led the vicious campaign to force Shelley to resign on trivial, unproven charges of corruption.* That was a Bush Cartel black ops, in my opinion (Shelley was going after their source code in the lawsuit) facilitated by the CA Dem PARTY and corrupt county election officials. Shelley had no money to defend himself with (no legal fund). Tells you something about Shelley--probably the last honest election official in the country.

*(One of the charges was "misuse" of HAVA funds. Turns out the "misuse" was Shelley withholding funds from the counties for purchase of Diebold's crappy, hackable, unauditable election machines!)

---------

You want to know what our election officials are spending their time doing--when they're not selling away our right to vote?

Check out the hogfest at the Beverly Hilton this August--a week of fun, sun and high-end shopping for election officials from around the country, sponsored by Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia electronic voting corporations. You'll want to puke...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x380340

---------

See http://www.votersunite.org, "MythBreakers" (easy to read pamphlet on the perils of electronic voting).

See http://www.UScountvotes.org (plan for statistical monitoring of the 2006 and 2008 elections).

---------

How did they steal millions of votes? They did it by corrupting our entire election system, so that nobody cares, nobody bothers about the peon voters any more or how they may have voted, and nobody has access to Diebold's and ES&S's "trade secret" elections.

It was easy.

[Marleyb]

57. I wonder if this had anything to do with it...

[dchill]

79. That photo...

and everything that it implies has bugged the hell out of me since I first saw it almost a year ago. Karl Rove + cell phone + room full of computers = Election Fraud waiting to happen. I believe it DID happen.

[skipos]

66. You mention Zogby. He did a poll recently: Bush still beats Kerry

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1020

[bettyellen]

90. zogby has always polled more republicans, % wise than exist in this

country. he has always been shown to skew 3% or so off because of who he polls.
look it up.

[skipos]

105. I did look it up and it contradicts what you are saying

His big claim to fame is accurately predicting Clinton's vote in 1996. He favored Gore and Kerry to win. From his website "We are independent and nonpartisan. I am personally a Democrat."

[bettyellen]

115. and more from his site about his "different" results:

I read a lot of polls and yours is so different from the others - what makes your answers so different (and accurate)?

JZ: "We poll only likely voters who are different from just all adults. In addition, we poll all day long - 9am to 9pm local time (to the region we're calling). Finally, we apply weighting for party identification to ensure that there is no built-in Democratic bias in our sampling."

[Imagevision]

180. Election Fraud in Ohio and Florida - all could vote 4 kerry it still would

have come out Bush 52-49, anyone thinking Diebold antics weren't involved ....gorget it, I won't even go there.

[bowens43]

190. 8 million votes?

They didn't have to steal 8 million votes, they only had to steal a few hundred in Florida in 2000 and a little over 118,000 in Ohio in 2004. How? Many ways including out right fraud and vote suppression.

[Miss Chybil]

13. Illegitimate. Just an FYI. nt

[autorank]

17. There's a ghost in my machine...I was to late to fix. Thnx anyway. My bad

[Miss Chybil]

60. That same ghost haunts mine from time to time. :) nt

[autorank]

129. Let's form a 12 step group...admitted we were powerless over our

typing and our keyboards were ruining our spelling. :)

[texpatriot2004]

15. I agree, FRAUD explains the results of the 2004 "election"

The way I read this, the GOP's 3 million "Evangelical" votes would not have put him over the edge but rather helped him close in on the Democrats and possibly, POSSIBLY win the "election" narrowly. Instead, he "won" by a "3 million vote majority where no such vote could exist." Which definitely explains the "moral majority" and "Evangelical" vote nonsense that the pundits spewed after the "election." Some Republicans were indeed "shocked" by this result, it was obvious to watch.

So, basically, this affirms the theory that some of us have had that Kerry won the "election" by about 8 million votes or at the very minimum 4.5 million votes.

I think that it does illustrate the realistic obstacles that the GOP faced going into the "election."

This would validate a person opinion of mine...Kerry ran a great campaign, so much so that he kept the Gore voters (who won in 2000), increased the Democratic votes (our voter registration drives were exponentially more successful), brought in the 3rd party votes who were screaming with the rest of us "anybody but Bush", and I know he converted Republican voters who were doubtful about this pResident being a TRUE CONSERVATIVE. I think the motivation against Bush has not been given sufficient weight in most analysis.

It seems to me then that Rove had to go to plan "D" - manipulate the central tabulator and use any other means necessary to achieve his end goal. Therefore, I agree with the statement here that the exit polls point to a logical conclusion that is the "election" results could not have been achieved without FRAUD.

Still, the KICKER is this, this Government CANNOT prove to me (or to anyone else) that they are legitimate. They cannot "prove" they were elected. They have the burden of proof in this matter, not I. Without being able to prove that they were indeed "elected" as they say they were, we have NO TRANSPARENCY IN OUR ELECTION AND NO DEMOCRACY!

KERRY WON! GET OVER IT!

[Cocoa]

16. this thread nicely destroys the credibility of many election reformers

a certain type of activist, that is, not all activists.

Beautifully done, I couldn't have done it better myself. :toast:

[bettyellen]

91. and god knows you've been trying.

to no avail, it seems, but i'm sure someone appreciates the effort.
:eyesroll:

[Cults4Bush]

18. My first nomination as Cults4Bush goes to this thread and the wonderful

links here in.

Thanks for your post and of course all of ER&D pretty much. More people watch you people than you know, I believe.


edit: spelling

[autorank]

21. Thank you very much. Great username...covers a lot of territory.

:)

[Cults4Bush]

25. Thank you... I think it gets the point across.

That is what they are, after all.

[autorank]

137. Here is some photographic proof for you...

Cults4Bush, the evidence!

[Cults4Bush]

151. Swampy and DA are two of the best protest artists the left has online.

I have one of swampys' pics blown up to poster size in my office... the one with all the players heads floating around behind bush... Everyone loves it!

...lol... Thanks for linking I hadn't been there in a while.

[knowbody0]

19. just a kick for an excellelent post

[autorank]

23. thnx

:hi:

[tritsofme]

20. Who was predicting 112 million votes?

A re-run of 2000?

Since the summer of 2004 anyone who was seriously following the race, especially pollsters tweaking their likely voter models knew there would be at least 60% turnout, and that translates to somewhere around 120 million votes.

And Bush didn't really have "falling polling numbers" in the run-up to the election, he bottomed out in the spring from the fallout of Abu Ghraib and pretty much held a consistently small lead from late July to election day, peaking after a largely successful PR convention in New York.

Of the last 50 polls conducted before the election, Kerry only led in 6.

GW/Battleground (1000 LV) 10/31 - 11/1 50% 46% Bush +4
Rasmussen (3,000 LV) 10/30 - 11/1 50.2% 48.5% Bush +1.7
TIPP (936 LV) 10/30 - 11/1 46.9% 44.3% Bush +2.6
FOX News (1200 LV) 10/30 - 10/31 46% 48% Kerry +2
CNN/USAT/Gallup (1573 LV) 10/29 - 10/31 49% 47% Bush +2
CBS/NY Times (643 LV) 10/28 - 10/30 50% 47% Bush +3
ARG (1258 LV) 10/28 - 10/30 48% 49% Kerry +1
Newsweek (882 LV) 10/27 - 10/29 51% 45% Bush +6
Battleground (1000 LV) 10/25 - 10/28 51% 46% Bush +5
CNN/USAT/Gallup (1195 LV) 10/22 - 10/24 52% 46% Bush +6
Los Angeles Times (881 LV) 10/21 - 10/24 49% 48% Bush +1
Newsweek (880 LV) 10/21 - 10/22 48% 47% Bush +1
Time (803 LV) 10/19 - 10/21 52% 47% Bush +5
GW/Battleground (1000 LV) 10/18 - 10/21 49% 45% Bush +4
Rasmussen (3,000 LV) 10/17 - 10/19 48% 47% Bush +1
FOX News (1000 LV) 10/17 - 10/18 48% 43% Bush +5
CBS News (678 LV) 10/14 - 10/17 47% 46% Bush +1
CNN/USAT/Gallup (788 LV) 10/14 - 10/16 52% 44% Bush +8
Time (865 LV w/leaners) 10/14 - 10/15 48% 48% TIE
Newsweek (LV) 10/14 - 10/15 50% 45% Bush +5
GW/Battleground (1000 LV) 10/11 - 10/14 49% 46% Bush +3
CBS News (760 LV) 10/9 - 10/11 47% 46% Bush +1
ICR (763 LV) 10/9 - 10/11 49% 46% Bush +3
CNN/USAT/Gallup (793 LV) 10/9 - 10/10 48% 50% Kerry +2
Rasmussen (3,000 LV) 10/7 - 10/9 50% 46% Bush +4
Time (886 LV w/leaners) 10/6 - 10/7 47% 46% Bush +1
GW/Battleground (1250 LV) 10/3 - 10/7 49% 46% Bush +3
Fox News (1000 LV) 10/3 - 10/4 48% 45% Bush +3
ICR (762 LV)** 10/1 - 10/5 51% 46% Bush +5
ARG (800 LV) 10/2 - 10/4 46% 47% Kerry +1
CBS/NYT (561 LV) 10/1 - 10/3 48% 47% Bush +1
Zogby (1036 LV) 10/1 - 10/3 46% 45% Bush +1
CNN/USAT/Gallup (772 LV) 10/1 - 10/3 49% 49% TIE
Newsweek (1013 RV) 9/30 - 10/2 46% 49% Kerry +3
Battleground (1000 LV) 9/27 - 9/30 51% 44% Bush +7
LA Times (1100 LV) 9/25 - 9/28 51% 46% Bush +5
CNN/USAT/Gallup (758 LV) 9/24 - 9/26 52% 44% Bush +8
IBD/TIPP (649 LV) 9/22 - 9/27 45% 46% Kerry +1
Time (877 LV) 9/21 - 9/23 49% 43% Bush +6
FOX News (1000 LV) 9/21 - 9/22 45% 43% Bush +2
Battleground (1000 LV) 9/20 - 9/23 50% 45% Bush +5
CBS News (931 LV) 9/20 - 9/22 50% 41% Bush +9
Zogby (1066 LV) 9/17 - 9/19 47% 44% Bush +3
IBD/TIPP (650 LV) 9/14 - 9/18 46% 43% Bush +3
CNN/USAT/Gallup (767 LV) 9/13 - 9/15 55% 42% Bush +13
CBS News (1088 RV) 9/12 - 9/16 50% 42% Bush +8
Battleground (1000 LV) 9/12 - 9/15 49% 45% Bush +4
IBD/TIPP (674 LV) 9/7 - 9/12 47% 47% TIE
Newsweek (1003 RV) 9/9 - 9/10 50% 45% Bush +5
Zogby (1018 LV) 9/8 - 9/9 47% 45% Bush +2
Time (857 LV) 9/7 - 9/9 54% 42% Bush +12

http://realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry_hth.html

I had high hopes on election day, but the result did not take me by surprise and spur me into a year long denial of reality.

[Awsi Dooger]

24. tritsofme, stop injecting naughty reality into a conspiracy thread

How can Truth Is All be quoted seriously in a thread like this? A year ago his 99.99% likelihood threads were all over this website. He was ignorantly using state polls as an allmighty over national polls, even though the latter have consistently demonstrated to be more accurate and up to date. Myself and others were emphasizing that all along.

Just because we had the passion and the decibel level didn't mean we had superior numbers. Every legitimate study was screaming that party ID had switched to the GOP post 9/11. White women were always going to be the critical voting block and a smalll but decisive number switched to the GOP and national security fear. I've posted this link over and again. It basically forewarns our November fate. The key word is parity, and we can't win with parity. A 2-3 point edge is a must for Democratic candidates nationwide, since Republicans are consistently more loyal. I challenge autorank and the other conspiracy minded to read it, if they dare: http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=750

Look, I despise Bush as much as anyone here. For years I wanted to pretend we could evict him in 2004. But the historical trends and basic handicapping always told me it was extremely unlikely. If a party has been in office only one term, the incumbent is given the benefit of a doubt and re-elected in overwhelming percentage. It's now 11 out of 12 since 1900. The only loss was Carter in 1976. IF Bush had a Carter-like approval rating, similar to today's, he would have been thrown out. But it was basically 50/50 and actually climbing approaching election day.

I will always believe John Edwards had the best shot. Tossing an incumbent requires a special charismatic challenger. The only two successes in my lifetime have been Reagan and Clinton. How does John Kerry fit in that group more than an upbeat populist like John Edwards? My DU evaluation of Kerry in early 2003: "Just good enough to get you beat." I wrote I would bet on Edwards over Bush, otherwise I would bet on Bush against anyone else. But on election day last year I had a bet on Kerry. Simply because I shared the hatred for Bush and wanted to pretend he was out. My Las Vegas and elsewhere betting buddies have scolded me ever since.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tritsofme]

30. If its the same poster I'm thinking of

You having him on ignore has become redundant...

[autorank]

32. Let's talk politics not personalities. Back on task...

[autorank]

33. There are clear points outlined in the threat. Are you going to respond?

This is not about polls. Why not respond to the post and we'll have a debate on political tactics, what can actually happen in an election.

Do you dispute that there were only 3-4 million evangelicals left to suqeeze a win out of?

Do you argue that we lost the trench war even thought we had more money?

Do you argue against any of the other points?

I'd like to hear what you have to say.

[Yupster]

37. Just on the subject of the ground game autorank

The best thing I read was right on the subject was right after the election in the New York Times magazine.

The NYT had a reporter follow the head of the ACT (America Coming Together) interest group up to and including election day.

The head of the Clark campaign in Ohio took over the ACT effort in Ohio once Clark left the race.

This guy knew more about the Ohio ground game than anyone else alive including anyone in the Kerry campaign. He had much more money than the Kerry campaign and for months used it signing up Kerry voters precinct by precinct by the thousands.

On election day each potential voter was contacted by the ACT people and their names were marked off as they voted.

When the first exit poll numbers came in, the celebration started, but each new exit poll was less and less favorable to Kerry until the later ones showed a tie.

Toward the end of the day, the guy decided to take a ride out to some safely Republican suburban precincts. He walked up to where the turnout figures are posted hour by hour and was sick. Republicans were turning out in much greater numbers than he had planned for.

There was one more interesting vignette I remember. Late in the evening there was a long line at a reliably Democratic polling station and it was raining. He wanted to do everything he could to keep those people in line so he decided to get food out to them. McDonalds provided a food truck for some ungodly amount of money that he said he wouldn't pay, but a union official was with him and said he'd pick up the tab. So out they went to the precinct with the food.

There they met the local precinct chairman or county chairman who shocked the guy by pointing to a new subdivision near the polling place and told the ACT guy that this precinct was not nearly as reliable as it was just four years go, because that entire subdivision was brand new, and full of Repblicans, many of whom had driven home from work and were on line right then.

By the time the results started coming in, the ACT guy knew he was in trouble. While still hopeful, he was realistically looking at the evidence and seeing a slight loss. And that's what he got.

So, to your question about could the Republicans have won the ground game with less money, I answer, yes. If this guy thought so, and he ran the ground game and knew more than anyone else alive about it, then I'm convinced and arguments and theories on the internet aren't going to change my mind.

On the other hand, I certainly don't intend to convince anyone else, and there really isn't any point in arguing as it seems that many people have this deep-seeded need to believe that Kerry won. I guess people put so much of themselves into the campaign that they just can't believe that it wasn't successful. I guess it's the second stage of mourning which is disbelief. Anyway, those people will go on believing, will need to keep believing till the day they die.

[anaxarchos]

38. I can buy what both the NYT and ACT guys said...

In fact, it appears that both ground games were awsome (if uneven). I can also buy "the need to believe". It cuts both ways. The problem comes in when it closes our ears.

I live in Broward County, Fl. In all of recent history, Broward, Palm Beach, and Dade counties have been the engine of all statewide Democratic wins in Florida. These 3 counties are the most energized and produce by far the largest Democratic plurality.

In 2004, we out registered the Republicans by a factor of more than 4 to 1. The vote in Florida was 40% greater than in 2000. Statewide, the turnout was amazing and there were a million stories like the one you told (but typically about somewhere else... in Central Florida or in the North). But when the dust settled, it turned out that we "lost it" in South Florida. We had NOT been swamped in Orlando or somewhere else. In Broward, we had essentially the same plurality as in 2000 despite the increase in turnout.

Worse, Broward went from being one of the highest turnouts to one of the lowest. I've seen a LOT of campaigns in my time. I don't buy it.
There was PLENTY to criticize about the ground game. But, I just don't buy it.

I don't think that belief is "faith based"...

[autorank]

39. We all have a story...Crimes committed 10 months ago ARE relevant!

This article is interesting and comprehensive. I find it much more persuasive than an ex Clarkie (who I voted for) stuck on the mean streets of the burbs somewhere. Even Sabato was ssying Kerry looked good on the ground.

As for your Kubleri-Ross, thanks but I'm not grieving. I'm analyzing. If we all just forgot what happened 10 months ago, we'd have a rolling general amnesty for all crimes. Just don't get caught and you're free from all those "mourners" who can't get over it. What would happen to "Cold Case Files" -- cancelled due to lack of interest in an event horizon geater than minus 10 months.

The psychology is not an argument. Arguments based on facts are of real interest however.

I'm game if you are.

And it is important. The commission of a political crime like we saw in the last election, organized voter suppression in various hot spots around the country, is something to remember. I want something done about that, aside from who won. Do you? We had a second attempt at a bogus felon purge in Florida (the base list of voters with no Hispanic sur names); we had huge problems in New Mexico-unexamined but important, none the less; and of course, the utter shame of Ohio. Voter suppression, organized, calculated, and flithy, is something that has to be stomped out, purged from the system. I'm not sad, I'm extremely motivated to make sure this doesn't happen again.

Here's a nice piece from the Post.

================================================

washingtonpost.com
What Poll and Registration Numbers Don't Reveal
Passion and Motivation to Vote Are Hard to Gauge

By Terry M. Neal
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 13, 2004; 11:43 AM

With less than three weeks before the election, President Bush may be in a politically precarious position going into tonight's critical debate with Sen. John F. Kerry. Anecdotal and quantitative evidence suggest that Democrats and independent groups that support Democrats have done a better job than Republicans at registering new voters in key battleground states. In a normal year, the difficulty in getting the newly registered to the polls might mitigate this advantage. But anti-Bush passions on the left are running exceedingly high, making it more likely that marginal voters -- people who rarely or never vote -- will turn out this year.

"Conventional wisdom tells us that a good ground game means three to four points on Election Day," said Sarah Leonard, a spokeswoman for America Coming Together, a coalition of liberal, feminist and environmental organizations that supports Kerry.

University of Virginia political science professor Larry Sabato wrote in his "Crystal Ball" campaign analysis earlier this week that he expects a high turnout that will favor Kerry. "We are tempted to argue that Bush actually needed his full 5 to 6 percent September lead to insure a narrow victory," he wrote.

Part of Sabato's rationale for his prediction is that he thinks poll respondents who say they are undecided today will break somewhat more heavily for Kerry when they get to the voting booth.

For more than a year, a number of independent advocacy groups that support Democrats have worked diligently to identify and register potential Democratic voters. Even Republicans acknowledge that Democratic-leaning groups have registered far more people than Republican supporters.

For instance, America Coming Together says it has registered 400,000 new voters nationwide, the vast majority in the battleground states of Pennsylvania (131,000), Missouri (120,000) and Ohio (85,000).

Moving America Forward, a Latino advocacy group founded by New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D), announced this week that it had registered 140,000 new, mostly Hispanic voters in the closely divided states of Florida, New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona and Nevada. In Colorado, Florida and New Mexico – the three states that have partisan registration -- about 60 percent of the new registrations have been Democrats, 20 percent Republicans and 20 percent independents, according to a spokesperson for the group.

In a front-page article in the New York Times on Sept. 26, writer Ford Fessenden wrote: "A sweeping voter registration campaign in heavily Democratic areas has added tens of thousands of new voters to the rolls in the swing states of Ohio and Florida, a surge that has far exceeded the efforts of Republicans in both states…" The Washington Post has examined this phenomenon in a number of stories that are worth reading. You can see them here and here. One Post story notes that voter registration has surged in Republican-leaning Virginia -- a state not typically considered a battleground -- with the heaviest activity in the Washington, D.C., suburbs, the most reliably Democratic part of the state.

Aside from new voter registration, many Democrats and even some nonpartisans believe the polls are not accurately reflecting the intensity of passion felt by those on the left, many of whom will be motivated to vote for the first time out of anger at Bush and his policies.

For example, in the Washington Post/ABC News poll, respondents are asked first if they are registered to vote. They are also asked if they voted in the last presidential election. Those who answer no to the second question (besides 18-to-21 year olds), are excluded from the pool of likely voters. In yesterday's tracking poll, Bush led Kerry 50-47 among likely voters, but Kerry led Bush 48-46 among registered voters. That's means Bush benefits by 5 points when newly registered voters who didn't vote four years ago are excluded.

Remember the Republican Revolution of 1994? Leading up to the midterm election that year, most pollsters and analysts expected GOP gains, but few predicted the ensuing blowout, in part because it was difficult to quantify through polls the emotions that were percolating among white male voters in particular that year.

In many ways, this year's election is all about the president. Poll after poll has shown that he is more beloved among Republicans than Kerry is beloved among Democrats. Both candidates have equal unfavorable ratings among members of the opposing party. Forty-seven percent of independents in yesterday's Washington Post poll have an unfavorable impression of Bush, while 44 percent have an unfavorable impression of Kerry. But what these numbers don't reveal is who will be most motivated to vote.

"Nobody knows for sure what's going to happen," said Jack Pitney, a government professor at Claremont McKenna College in California, who has long been active in Republican politics. "But hatred is a more reliable motivator than love, particularly in a state like Florida where you have hatred and anger mixed with a thirst for revenge."

[Yupster]

43. Yes I agree

A lot of people thought Kerry would win before the election. I did too. It looked like it was going to be a win.

The guy from ACT, the organization you're quoting thought he'd win until halfway through election day - until he started visiting Republican precincts. Then he realized it might not happen, then would not happen.

But yes it surprised a lot of people. We thought Kerry'd win.

I don't know what the point of the quotes about before the election is. It reminds me of a football coach whose team gets upset and after the game he keeps reading and rereading all the pre-game predictions saying how he was going to win. See, this guy said we'd win and so did this guy and that guy and we just couldn't lose.

Gotta go to bed. Really no point to this discussion anyway. The believers are going to believe. The exit polls are never wrong even though the exit polls showed Dukakis and Bush tied. It doesn't matter. Next day they'll be another post saying the exit polls are never wrong. Same with the pre-election polls showing Kerry ahead, and the ground game couldn't be lost.

[autorank]

54. Hope you had a nice sleep.

The issue isn't one ACT volunteer in one area on one afternoon, it's what happened nationwide. I saw Kerry win my precinct in a convincing fashion even though the precinct is almost uniformly upscale and interested in /appreciative of tax cuts. I saw it happen in person since I was a poll watcher.

As for Duke-George I, that's a long time ago. How about the last two prexy elections with the exits were w/in 0.04% accurate . Not to shabby. If you don't like them, tell the people in the Ukraine that, they get their old president back, the one that poinsoned his opponent or tell the many countries around the world that use them.

It does matter what happened just as it matters that we know OJ did it. Afterall, you now know not to golf with that guy, or if you do LET HIM WIN!

[Yupster]

56. One ACT volunteer ...

He wasn't one volunteer in one neighborhood on one afternoon. He was the highly paid head of the ACT organization for the most important state on election day.

Man, oh man.

And on exit polls, the idea that exit polls are always accurate is just plain nonsense and it has been shown by many different people on these boards many different times. It doesn't seem to matter though since the next day there will be a post about how accurate exit polls are ayway.

However, in 1988 the exit polls showed a tie between Dukakis and Poppy, yet Bush won by 8 %.

In 1992 the exit polls showed Clinton with 2.5 % more than he actually got.

In 1996 the exit polls showed Cinton beating Dole worse than he did.

In short for every election in the last 20 years the exit poll has shown the Democratic candidate winning more votes than he actually did. So why is anyone surprised that the exit poll this time showed extra strength for Kerry?

I think it's just pure emotion. People can't believe Bush won so they'll latch onto anything no matter how many times it's been shown to be silly. They just have to believe. It's become a need.

On the Ukraine, anyone who's looked into it even a little bit knows the exit polls used in some countries to verify elections are far different than the ones we use in the USA. They're just completely different animals.

An ass is an ass, but to a farmer and a prostitute, the word may mean very different things. The same is true of an exit poll in Germany and Alabama.

And by the way, in 2000, the Alabama exit poll showed Gore winning the state when he actually lost it by about 15 %. Obvious evidence of fraud no doubt.

Here's a link not that it will do any good.

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/12/have_the_exit_p.html

Anyway I will try to follow the advice I've given myself for a year now and try to stay away from these threads. They're just depressing and they remind me of the Monty Python skit "She's a witch, burn her."

Thank you. I did have a nice sleep, but now I'm wasting my lunch hour explaining something that's been explained hundreds of times before to people who don't want to hear it. No offense as I'm not speaking specifically to you, but to the true believers out there who aren't going to change their minds.

[autorank]

121. Lunch time reading...an answer to your points.

The DEMS have always seen a decline from the exit polls to the vote. Punched card spoilage always cost them millions of votes in minority precincts; that's a major reason (but not the only one) why the exit polls have always overstated the democratic vote. (Casting votes out for "spoilage" is one of the great silent "election fraud" scandals spanning decades)

In fact, the exit polls were close to the truth - but at least 3% of democrats who were polled did not realize that their votes were never counted.

Nevertheless, the trend in exit poll deviation has been going down to zero. In 2000 the exit polls were right - Gore won. See the graph.



Now it’s 2004. The Republicans have their Diebold machines with no paper trail counting 30% of the votes. They will have to accept the fact that since there will be fewer spoiled ballots, they will need to make them with votes stolen with the only Diebold machines made without a paper trail. Unlike those ATM's we’ve all used which have no problem producing paper trails.

In 2004 punched card ballot spoilage would not be enough for Bush to win. Bush needed to go straight to the boss, Wally O’Dell for the big fix.

Those who ignore the massive, documented fraud and maintain that Bush won do so at the peril of a docile but awakening Democratic Party.

Why is it that you fail to fully discuss the fact that millions of votes were lost through ballot spoilage or worse.

You argue that the exit polls are always wrong. No, your premise that the “official” votes represent voter intent is fallacious. The combination of spoiled punched cards and the Diebold hacking won it for Bush.

You are effectively claiming that the final vote count is always correct and the exit polls faulty, yet ignore the documented historical data which prove that the final count does not represent the true intent of the voters whose votes were never counted.

This all fits nicely with the logic of the political argument above. Given the veracity of the politics and voting blocs, it was vital to do something more. After all, these are the very same people who invaded a country which never attacked us and did so for a variety of reasons, each of which has fallen.

[foo_bar]

78. why so much faith in the Ukraine's exit polls?

Openly and blatantly, the US and other Western embassies paid for exit polls, prompting Russia to do likewise, though not to the same extent.

http://www.worldpress.org/print_article.cfm?article_id=2107&dont=yes

Western-backed exit polls had put the reform-minded Yushchenko ahead of Yanukovych .

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/11/24/Ukrainereax_041124.html?email

A key part of the media game has been the claim that Yushchenko won according to "exit polls". What is not said is that the people doing these "exit polls" as voters left voting places were US-trained and paid by an entity known as Freedom House, a neo-conservative operation in Washington. Freedom House trained some 1,000 poll observers, who loudly declared an 11-point lead for Yushchenko. Those claims triggered the mass marches claiming fraud. The current head of Freedom House is former CIA director and outspoken neo-conservative, Admiral James Woolsey, who calls the Bush administration's "war on terror" "World War IV". On the Freedom House board sits none other than Brzezinski. This would hardly seem to be an impartial human-rights organization.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/GA20Ag01.html

More on that, from the horse's mouth:

Two separate exit polls showed a clear victory by Mr. Yushchenko. One poll showed him ahead by 4 Percent, and the otherby the Exit Pollconsortium, supported by European governments and private Western foundations -- showed Mr. Yushchenko winning by 11 percent.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/media/pressrel/112204.htm

[loudsue]

67. Your facts are wrong. Here's just one glaring example:

"If a party has been in office only one term, the incumbent is given the benefit of a doubt and re-elected in overwhelming percentage. It's now 11 out of 12 since 1900. The only loss was Carter in 1976."

Right there, you've left off George Senior. He served one term.

You guys will skew your results every way you possibly can until you come up with something that you think will stick.

You can deny a stolen election until the cows come home, and try to fit all your wingnut propaganda in wherever you can. The problem is, you've got people here who are smart enough to know when they've been duped.

:kick:

[Blackdg]

73. George Senior served one term, true...

But the repukes had been in power for two terms before him. The analysis stands.

[loudsue]

76. WOW!! You guys are REALLY coming out strong for this lie,

aren't you??? Just because the "facts" you present are WRONG, you still fall back on some other lame bs? You said "Jimmy Carter was the "only one" since 1900. But when THAT isn't true, you fall back on some other milquetoast explanation?

Our elections are being gerrymandered, and you just don't care, do you?

Whatever floats your boat.

:kick:

[Blackdg]

80. Excuse me, I didn't intend to upset you...

I am a student of the political process and I thought the analysis was interesting. You attempted to refute the analysis by (willfully) misinterpreting the language, ie. the difference between a person being in office for only one term (George Senior) vs. a party being in office for only one term (Jimmy Carter).

I attempted to clarify the analysis in my previous post. I did not comment on the overall thesis. You do not know how I feel about it and should not have assumed you know my position.

[Nederland]

134. C'mon

Its obvious that you misread the earlier post to say "...candidate has been in office only one term" when in fact it actually said "...party has been in office only one term".

An easy enough mistake to make, I made it myself at first read. Just admit you made a mistake and move on.

[autorank]

27. It's not what they thought, it's what they had to deal with; & late polls

It isn't argued that they didn't understand it would be a larger turnout later in the election. The argument is that it looked like a rerun of 2000 to them and they saw the 3 million evangelicals as their ticket to ride. The extra votes canceled that out. That's the reasoning, not what they claimed to think or not. Address the issue of how the 3.0 million evangelicals get him where you think he got.

You forgot the undecided vote in your long list of polls. It's not the polls in September, it's the last series. Here is a summary above. If you want the actual polls, go here. I presumed 60% undecided for Kerry, just using the polling data. He wins handily. You have to pick a pretty low undecided number for Kerry, just using the pre election polls, to get a Bush victory. Of course, there the larger set of data.

Polling Data Source:
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm
http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/YouGovS.pdf

18 Poll Summary:
Kerry won 9, Bush 8, 1 tied
Kerry won 5 of 9 Registered Voter (RV) Polls
and 4 of 9 Likely Voter (LV) Polls

Poll simulation presuming Undecided to Kerry: 60%
Projection based on undecided allocation and weighted sample-size
Kerry 50.42
Bush 48.58
Other 1.00

Go here for a spread sheet allowing you to use the Excel interactive model.

http://us.share.geocities.com/electionmodel/InteractiveElectionSimulation.xls
------------------------------

The real point of this thread is the political logic, or rather illogic of claiming Bush won.

[tritsofme]

29. Why quote YouGuv? Its utterly worthless

Not a random sample, it comes from a "recruited panel"

Was it just because Kerry led in it?

The RCP average of the final 8 polls conducted a week or less before the election gave Bush edge by a margin of 48.9%-46.9%, and Kerry only led in 2.

Allocate undecideds to 60% Kerry and 40% Bush, and the total would be Bush 50.58% Kerry 49.42%; pretty damn close to the actual popular vote total, hits Bush's number head on.

[autorank]

31. You're changing the subject. Argue the common sense logic of the post.

This isn't a thread about the exit polls, it's about the arguments in the post. All you want to do is talk about polls (as do the others in your possee).

I want to talk politics. Comment on that.

[OnTheOtherHand]

48. actually, I'm still trying to figure out the "common sense logic"

The OP refers to "falling poll numbers" (in what time frame?). It also says, "As the election approached, it became clear that the impact of Iraq and the faltering economy (particularly in potential battlegrounds like Ohio and Pennsylvania) had undone that 'strategy'" (i.e., of chipping away at Democratic constituencies). At which point, apparently, Rove apparently went after evangelicals --

a strategy that was foiled by the turnout, which was far greater than the expected "rerun of 2000" --

except that far greater turnout than in 2000 was expected --

except that it perhaps hadn't been expected in the summer of 2003 --

and is that what is meant by "as the election approached"?

Regardless, one has to wonder: how did it "bec(o)me clear" that Rove's initial strategy had failed? "Falling poll numbers" seem like they could be a pretty good answer.

[anaxarchos]

34. Nice try...

1) What people predicted in "the summer of 2004" couldn't be more irrelevant. Rove's strategy was formulated in the summer of 2003. You only missed by 1 year. At that time, a rerun of 2000 was precisely what was predicted by nearly everyone and it was what the Republican Strategy was predicated on. If you can find a single reference to a record 60% turnout for 2004 dating back to 2003, please share it. In fact, the only voices talking about a huge turnout even in the summer of 2004 were Democrats... and they mostly talked about it AFTER the Presidential debates... AND, then, they were roundly criticized for letting their "enthusiasm run away with them". Pew Research predicted 57% and Curtis Gans of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate predicted 117 to 121 million (58 to 60%) literally at the eleventh hour but both predictions were controversial. The actual vote was 122.3 million.

Here is just one of the literally dozens of press accounts that essentially report what I said about Rove, etc.:

"Now, two weeks before the election, the Bush-Cheney campaign would be happy to eke out the barest, skin-of-the-teeth majority, and aims to cobble it together by turning out every last evangelical Christian, gun owner, rancher and home schooler -- reliable Republicans all. It looks like the opposite of Rove's original dream." (Washington Post, Oct. 17, 2004)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38684-2004Oct16.html

2) You say, "Since the summer of 2004 anyone who was seriously following the race, especially pollsters tweaking their likely voter models knew there would be at least 60% turnout, and that translates to somewhere around 120 million votes."

Really? You say this with such confidence that I hate to contradict you. In fact, you regurgitate what Dr. Other (or was it his alter ego Mr. Hand?) says, word for word. Too bad that Dr. Other always has "false memory".

If this is true, then you wouldn't mind providing a single citation from the very long list of polling organizations which you have inadvertently provided that shows us that "pollsters tweaking their likely voter models knew there would be at least 60% turnout". One example shouldn't be hard, should it?

In fact, seven of the polling organizations used a variation of the Gallup "Likely Voter Model". This asks a series of questions, largely focused on past voting behavior, creates an index and uses an explicit "cutoff" at the expected level of turnout. These seven are ABC/Washington Post, Gallup, LA Times, Newsweek, Pew, Quinnipiac and Time.

Gallup used a cutoff of 55% and didn't tweak at all except for their very last poll. That translates into a turnout of less than 109 million voters. This was the main reason Mark Blumenthal (no friend of those who believe in fraud) reported that "At the national level, the surveys that attempt to calibrate the percentage of likely voters to expected turnout have given George Bush wider leads than other polls released since Labor Day."

...No kidding. By no less than 7 points. What does that do to your very impressive list?

But that isn't all. ALL of the Likely Voter Models implicitly take turnout into account in some way even if not with an explicit cutoff like Gallup. And because LV models are largely predicated on past voting behavior, they are not very good at capturing major surges in turnout. Was 2004 a major surge? It was nothing less than the fourth largest turnout in a century and within 2 points of the record.

That is precisely why 13 of the polling organizations you mention ALSO provide polls of "Registered Voters". Many analysts quote both. TruthIsAll used to use a mix of both for precisely that reason. I notice you didn't quote a single RV poll. We both know why, don't we. It would tell the opposite of your story...


I don't claim that what I wrote and what autorank quoted is the end-all of fraud analysis. But it is accurate and it is the starting point from which you must begin to make your case that Bush won. What you've said is just meant to depress...

(anaxarchos extends a giant crucifix in front of him) ...Back ...Get Back into Your Crypt ...I Command You.

[The Magistrate]

35. As A Matter Of Curiousity, Sir

What is the signifigance of your closing line?

[anaxarchos]

36. I think it is a quote from a Hammer Film of the 1960's...

"Dracula meets Elvis Presley"... or some such.

A (crude) attempt to lighten up what is otherwise a very bitter debate.

Sorry if the reference was too obscure.

[texpatriot2004]

42. SMACK. That rebuttal was superb. I like the close but took it more

seriously as to fend off evil liars.

[OnTheOtherHand]

46. hmm...

I honestly don't know why you think that people's projections of 2004 turnout in the summer of 2003 -- or even immediately before the election -- are crucial to the debate. I mean, I read the words: you apparently think that Rove gambled the farm on a lackluster turnout and lost his bet. But I don't know why you believe them.

The underlying assumption seems to be that higher turnout inherently favors the Democrat. But surely that depends on who turns out. Can we really assume that 3-4 million evangelicals were the only unlikely or intermittent voters that Bush could possibly draw upon? I don't see why. Can we really assume that turnout is a predictor of Democratic vote share? I don't see why. Someone should actually make these arguments.

Folks can run through MysteryPollster's post on likely voter models and find all sorts of figures for likely voters, some of which are very hard to interpret. (Time said its target was "62-64% of the adult telephone household that we reach in our surveys" -- how does that translate to % of eligible voters? We know Gallup used 60% for their final survey; Newsweek apparently used 60% with some fudge that I will let the truly interested attempt to interpret. Probably the low figure is NBC in September, 71% of registered voters, which wasn't a target -- I think registration was about 81% of eligible, so that would be down around 56 -- but I have no idea where that figure was by the election.)

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/11/likely_voters_v.html

So, that won't support tritsofme's claim that pollsters "knew" turnout would be "at least 60%," but I don't think it matters much (especially if the crucial argument is what was expected in the summer of 2003).

Of course, there are mixed signals in this thread about whether we are supposed to be talking about the polls, or just the political logic -- maybe even just the political logic as of 2003. If we're talking about the polls, I still see no basis for your confidence that a 60% turnout would blow up all the LV models.

Another thing I see no basis for is your paraphrase of Blumenthal's conclusions. The quotation is accurate: "At the national level, the surveys that attempt to calibrate the percentage of likely voters to expected turnout have given George Bush wider leads than other polls released since Labor Day." You add, "By no less than 7 points."

Well, actually, Blumenthal reports that in September, Gallup gave Bush an average 10-point lead, all the surveys that used a cut-off without party weights gave Bush an average 7-point lead, the surveys that used party weights gave Bush an average 3-point lead, and the surveys that used neither a cut-off nor party weights gave Bush an average 5-point lead. Anyway you slice it, I don't think "no less than 7 points" holds up. (I would go with 7 minus 5 equals 2, myself.) Still less for the latest results he reports in that post, where the average margin is 3 points for cut-off, 1 point for party weights, and 2 points for neither.

[anaxarchos]

135. Ah... Doctor Other...

I thought you had bid me adieu. What a pleasure to see that you are still here. Let's try to have a chat before Mr. Hand inevitably shows up...

Before we begin, there are no "mixed signals in this thread about whether we are supposed to be talking about the polls, or just the political logic -- maybe even just the political logic as of 2003". I didn't bring up the polls at all, except as a final afterthought (supporting evidence) to kiwi_expat. You brought up the polls in your initial response and tritsofme kindly repeated what you had said with the addition of that helpful table. You then claim confusion on the issue.

Let me be clear then. The only reason for talking about polls here is to quell the diversion. So let's quickly dispense with the polls and get to the meat of the issue.

1) There is every reason to believe that "a 60% turnout would blow up all the LV models". If turnout didn't matter, there would be no "Likely Voter Models". Polling self-described Registered Voters would be enough. In fact, the RV polls differ significantly from the LV polls as you yourself have pointed out. The specific turnout that is assumed by LV models would matter less if the turnout assumed by the various LV models did not yield divergent results. Blumenthal makes the opposite point. Actually, he implies more, because some sort of cut-off is implied by all of the LV polls. The ones that use a method other than Gallup's merely mediate that model with additional demographics.

2) There is no reason to assume that any of the LV models suggested a turnout different from that projected by Gallup or NBC (i.e. 109 to 111 million voters - I claimed a larger number, if you remember) nor that they significantly "tweaked" their projected turnouts (except at the 11th hour). If you have direct testimony to the contrary, you really must present it. Otherwise, the only point you have really made is only something that "should be true" according to you but remains unsupported by any other evidence.

3) You use a rhetorical device to set up your point. You call 108 to 112 million voters a "lackluster turnout". Sorry. That would have been a significant increase over 2000 and the largest turnout since 1968.

4) Other than agreeing with Blumenthal on that previous point, I actually quoted him in the context of "look even MB notices this". I don't agree with him. You do. I know you often argue points from convenience but I wonder if you have noticed that you are simultaneously arguing that the LV polls were an accurate predictor of Bush's performance and that the LV models which were the most accurate were the ones that most dramatically understated the turnout?

We can discuss the points above in detail at a later time, if you like. The rest of your "points" are arguments with yourself. You don't need me for those...

Now, we've been rude to me... so let's get to the political point.

You have not stated my argument accurately. I go MUCH further than you say. I claim to have inside knowledge of Republican 2004 election strategy ('snot hard). I claim a specific focus on "3 million evangelicals". I claim a very specific significance to that number as a function of expected turnout. I claim that this strategy was still operative to the very end of the campaign (or at least I cite a Washington Post account that claims it is still operational as of the middle of October, 2004). I further claim that I call Karl Rove himself to testify as an expert witness (second hand, admittedly).

If I have set this up correctly, there are only two possible objections:

1) I have misrepresented Rove and the Republican "strategy".
2) Rove was wrong and here is what he missed...

Please, don't bother to tell me what it "seems like" to you. Cite specific evidence. You can rest assured that I will do the same. I will give you time to collect your case and we can resume at your leisure.

I so much enjoyed this little chat Dr. Other, and I hope we can resume it soon but I notice Mr. Hand came in at about the same time as you. I will excuse myself to say hello to him as well.

[OnTheOtherHand]

143. goodness!

No, I think you pretty much have a lock on rudeness, but hey, that's personal stuff.

I am sorry that you take such vehement offense to the word "lackluster." (Actually, I'm mostly bored, and annoyed at myself for taking time to attempt to respond.) I thought your argument was that Rove had assumed 2004 would be a rerun of 2000, with respect to turnout, and now you apparently tell me that he was expecting "a significant increase over 2000 and the largest turnout since 1968." I am not being polemical; I really am that confused. And, frankly, I am tired of wasting my time trying to make your arguments make sense. This is not your best work. (But since you didn't make the OP, maybe it made more sense in the original.)

I've read your post quickly a couple of times looking for the source of your conviction that 60% turnout would blow up the LV models, and am still perplexed, since the figure seems very much in range; certainly perplexed that it would justify regarding the RV results as better. But mostly, I don't see why any of this matters much unless we are pounding the table claiming 99+% certainty that the polls give Kerry the win. And hey, who would do that?

What can I say? I am trying to be interested in your argument, but I'm not. The random ad hominem abuse probably has something to do with that, but beyond that, I just don't understand the obsession with the 3 million evangelicals. That's why I enjoyed pattim's post so much: instead of one big foggy Huh?, it was a point-by-point Huh? And the individual points are debatable (I had flagged undecideds as one point; now I would add that the argument on the "battle of attrition" may be overstated).

Why don't you catch your breath and see whether you can find a way to make this argument convincing to someone who doesn't already agree with you? There is no sign that you have succeeded in that so far.

[anaxarchos]

146. And now you spin like a top...

Been there before too. Same shit different day.

"Maybe it made more sense in the original"... Well, you might know since you were the first to respond to the original (In fact, you are among the first to reply to any of my posts... and TIA before me).

I engage in "ad hominem abuse" (Really? Where?).

I should "catch my breath" (Funny... I was feeling very calm).



You are "confused"... You are "bored"... You are not "interested"... You don't "get it"...


Wow...

You don't need me anymore to have a conversation.

[OnTheOtherHand]

147. Dr. Other and Mr. Hand? subtle... n/t

[anaxarchos]

148. Took you long enough to "get it"..... n/t

[AuntiBush]

22. No Challenge from this kid!

Fraud. Look at the piles of evidence.

[Kurovski]

44. Kick for truth.

Kick for the folks who don't seem to care anymore.

Kick for those in denial.

May consciousness and conscience clear sooner than later.

[texpatriot2004]

45. I'll kick to that. nm

[Peace Patriot]

49. I would add to Anaxarchos' analysis, this simple, straigtforward...

...evidence (the number part mostly developed by Steven Freeman):

Gore/Bush 2000 were a dead heat, with Gore having the edge in the popular vote.

The Dems blew the Bushites away in new voter registration in 2004, nearly 60/40.

The great majority of new voters voted for Kerry.

The great majority of independent voters voted for Kerry.

The great majority of former Nader voters voted for Kerry.

Gore/Bush 2000 switch voters canceled each other out and were not a significant factor.

Who else is there? Who voted for Bush? The Bush 2000 voters and ...?

Karl Rove's "invisible" get-out-the-vote campaign voters? Right.

The Gore 2000 voters--injured parties all--were the ones who got all of their non-voting family members, friends and co-workers to register and vote THIS TIME, because "this was the most important election in our history." Great enthusiasm. People flocking to the Dem party in great numbers to oust Bush, and voting in unprecedented numbers--the biggest turnout in our history. So, these Gore 2000 voters, who actually won the 2000 election ...what? Forgot to vote this time? Sat home? Fell prey to the Bushites' ridiculous, phony "terrorist alerts," dropped like bird turds into the newsstream prior to the election? Not bloody likely. These were MOTIVATED voters!

And there is ZERO evidence that the Rovian machine did anything to successfully mobilize "Christian" fundies or anybody else. Where is the evidence? As my brilliant husband pointed out, they were not even trying to win. Bush and Cheney were not even trying! They were acting like they had it all sewn up--as, indeed, they did.

People sometimes call Rove a genius and a master of P.R. Well, in truth, he isn't. You don't need to be a genius or a master to write the copy for a pre-ordained election, with your buds counting the votes electronically, using secret, proprietary programming code, and with a lapdog media that is willing to FALSIFY its own exit polls to fit the result of that secret tabulation.

I'd like to see what he was drafting on his computer, say in July 2004. ("Bush mandate." "Bush landslide." Note to Wally: Need Ohio? Yes/no? Note to Ken: double the disappeared voting machines in X number of D precincts. "Decisive victory for Bush." "Bush wins on the war on terror. People feel safer with Bush." Note to Blackwater: thanks for the video. "Kerry flip-flopping gave Bush the edge." Dinner with Alberto: make indictments go away. "Bush wins: Americans like being robbed." (Heh-heh.) "We did it with our invisible get-out-the-vote campaign," says Karl Rove. Mad LOL.)

You don't need to be a genius. You need to be a crook, and a liar, and a goddamn traitor.

[bleever]

52. Actually, it would be easy to prove that * actually won

by looking at each and every ballot and confirming the totals.

Oh...wait. We can't do that; no verifiable paper trail.

Well, I guess that means one thing:



It is impossible to ever prove that * won the 2004 election.

[byronius]

53. I have a feeling that someday -- all of this will be accepted historical

FACT. "The Lost Years of The United States Of America". With a foreword by Autorank. On the NYT Bestseller's List. It's just all too true, and with the DarkHearts falling to pieces, there's a good chance that we'll find the last pieces to the puzzle in the rubble.

[autorank]

104. We'll have you do an endorsement on the back cover.

From the newly independent California Bear Flag Republic, with full election integrity. You're about 1/2 way there, which puts you way ahead of the pack.

[pattim]

55. That is the absolute least airtight case I've ever seen.

It amounts to "It's unlikely he could have a priori, therefore any evidence that he did in fact win it is without doubt fraudulent." It is no better of an argument than "The radiation of space probably would have killed the astronauts, therefore the moon landings were faked."

The argument is as such:

1. Bush gained the presidency with a voter disadvantage.
This outright ignores the massive popularity uptick after 9/11, as well as the red, white, and blue haze that settled over the American populace. The Flag was holy, and he wrapped himself in it so tight that nobody else had a chance to try for two years. It implies that there wasn't the registered-Republican increase that occured from '00 to '04, and artificially splits the nation into "Bush zealots" and "Dem zealots," ignoring that most voters are in fact neither, but vote for who they believe the better candidate to be.

2. Bush's battle was fought in three methods and three methods only:
A terrible oversimplification.

1. Battle of Attrition
The Democrats did not enjoy their historic registration advantage, first of all. Secondly, the Republicans outspent the Democrats and were even more highly motivated, especially with churches. Thirdly, they worked locally more than Democrats did. Fourthly, the Republican operative turnout was the greatest such force in modern political history. That isn't "never fully engaged."
2. Winning Undecideds
This part is in utter ignorance of a principal Republican strategy: while Democrats try to move themselves to the center in an election year, Republicans try every year to move the center towards themselves. Screw the undecideds, there were only a small proportion of them. Rove had to expand the base to win. And he did.
3. Capture Evangelicals
They did.

And so we have "Well, I'm certain we outfought them, because cognitive dissonance prevents us from believing otherwise. And so we must have won."

Look, you provide me with a counterargument in your final point: Half of all Americans do not vote. If you assume only a slight increase in Republicans after 9/11, and increase the number of voters proportionally (as it is ridiculous to assume that only liberals stay home), then tack on the extra evangelicals, Bush wins the election by almost exactly the same amount that he actually did.

The counters are:
They did.
They did.
They were.

And we know they did, because Bush actually did win the majority of polls in the two weeks leading up to the election. You're using entirely "Well, it must have been unlikely" optimism-arguments and then taking them as airtight fact.

And that's the counterarugment. Your case isn't airtight, it's the desperate mass delusions of an echo-chamber that refuses to admit it had a bad strategy and a bad candidate.

I'm not a Republican, though I have a sinking feeling that going against the mass opinion so early in my posting career has put me on a path with a tombstone. But really, guys, don't eat me alive. If you have nobody to check your arguments, you become an echo chamber. And echo chambers can't win elections, because they can't gauge reality.

[OnTheOtherHand]

58. zing! echo-chamber, yes, often...

When I got to DU, I was told I was about to be tombstoned a lot. But if you keep your temper (more or less), and you are otherwise within the rules, it doesn't happen. And it gradually dawns on you that there are a lot of folks who agree, but are tired of arguing the points (although there have been some excellent counterexamples on this thread). But if no one enters the argument, then we gradually get dumber and dumber. (Some of the folks making the arguments are quite smart, but....)

You will find, if you haven't already, that quite a few DUers think that 'properly understood' the late polls showed Kerry ahead. Sigh.

I might quibble with you about "undecideds" -- I have to think about it.

Thanks for joining us. My hat is off to you for taking the time to engage the OP point by point.

[pattim]

59. Thanks for the support.

Nice to know I'm not alone.

[Joe Chi Minh]

61. Reminds me of Walter Matthau's one-liner in The Odd Couple...

when the little guy with the squeaky voice was boasting he'd booked in at a hotel with his wife, in the off-season, and got a great deal:

"Aaargh!Two cheap people in an empty hotel!"

Alas, the visit to the empty hotel here, isn't only unseasonable, the lights on the top floor seem to be permanently out of order.
And you cain't git cheaper than neocons, nowhere, noways!

[OnTheOtherHand]

62. huh?

I don't know who or what you are, but I'm about as far from a neocon as one can get. Fun movie, though.

[Twist_U_Up]

65. here ya go

http://www.electionfraud2004.org/presentation/index.html

this may open your eyes

[OnTheOtherHand]

74. hello -- that's a pretty good PowerPoint

I've been studying this issue since November. I agree with some of the points in the slide show and disagree with others. I'm not convinced that the election was stolen -- in fact, I think it probably wasn't (at least, not through the actual vote count). I don't think the arguments against DREs hinge on whether the 2004 election (or Georgia 2002 or Nebraska 1996) was stolen.

[Joe Chi Minh]

68. Well I'm not a neocon operative, am I?

but then, you wouldn't know, would you?

My name is Marmaduke Fishkins Wixall, and I am retired a rocket scientist. And you? Who are you, and what do you do when you are not trying to learn from your political betters?

Yes, that film was a classic. A few other great one-liners, in there, too.

[OnTheOtherHand]

77. well, I.... I...

I reveal all my deep dark secrets in my profile. A quick and boring read.

[Joe Chi Minh]

83. Aaah, so you're clearly not an activist type, are you. Just a

lecturer in politics, a Democrat who happens to want to argue with the conclusions of the range of eminent mathematicians who have defitively proved the massive fraud of the Republicans in the Ohio election. If such proof were needed to someone with the merest smidgeon of commonsense and the good faith it would have to repose on.

Having just jumped into a whirlpool to stab a drowning man in the back, I have to ask myself, could I have really descended to such a level of stupidity as to take questioning of the election fraud in Ohio seriously. What a waste of time!

[OnTheOtherHand]

85. Well, no, they haven't proven it. Sorry about that. n/t

[Usrename]

133. I was just wondering one thing.

Do you have any alternate theories of why they would design voting systems that cannot be verified other than with the specific intent of rigging elections?

[OnTheOtherHand]

139. sure, although the premise of your question may be "off"

I've worked on a system to manage data from clinical drug trials. One of the players in that field features Web-based data entry, and a big selling point is that electronic auditing is easy and there is less need to "shuffle paper." That has been the big selling point for DREs with respect to election boards, too: with a digital virtual ballot, who needs those nasty paper things? The absence of a paper trail is, from one standpoint, a huge benefit. (And, after all, the paper does create its own massive, distributed tracking and security problem. Conceptually, paper is easy, but logistically paper is kinda hard. Plenty of elections have been stolen on paper.)

So, am I defending paperless DREs? Naw, I think they suck. Do I regard their existence as evidence of a conspiracy to steal elections? Nope. Could they be used to steal elections regardless of the intent of the designers? Sure. Were they used to steal the 2004 election? Well, I've seen no evidence that they plausibly could have swung or suppressed or added enough votes to alter the result in the popular vote or in any state. Could the 2004 election have been stolen in part through DRE fraud? I can't rule it out. Should we insist on voter-verifiable paper ballots? Heck, yes. The paperless office was merely a dumb fantasy, but the paperless election is a dangerous one.

[Usrename]

153. "WHY" was my simple question.

I guess you could save a lot of hassle by not having ANY ballots. Just do a phone poll or something. "WHY" design the voting systems the way they did? Can't make any sense of your answer.

To save paper? Less hassle? Why not a secure system that you could go on-line, enter your PIN that you received at the poll, and check to see if your vote is REALLY there? Why is it TOTALLY unverifiable?

They are stupid and know nothing of votes or elections? (The closest thing to an answer to my question is when you say that plenty of elections have been stolen on paper. Think about it.)

There is no alternative that you propose other than my premise is "off". Can you please tell me how it can possibly be "off".

[OnTheOtherHand]

155. ah, sorry about the ambiguity there

I meant that you seemed to be assuming that I was defending e-voting -- which may have been a mistake on my part (that's why I said "may"), and at any rate isn't material to the issues. But I didn't mean to throw you off by it.

If I understand this post correctly, you are proposing as a counterfactual (not necessarily as a policy) that they could implement DREs with retrospective voter verifiability. So why didn't they? Probably because no one insisted on it, and it would be expensive to implement. I mean, what we know about these folks that they overpromise and underdeliver -- I shudder to think about their attempts to implement "a secure system that you could go on-line... and check to see if your vote is REALLY there." (I don't object to the concept.)

If you're insisting that systems designed this poorly have to be designed with fraudulent intent, well, I'm just not convinced. It's possible that they were, but perfectly possible that they weren't. I've seen plenty of poorly designed systems. And these _are_ poorly designed systems, as far as I can tell -- they have many more egregious security flaws than they should if they were expressly engineered to steal elections. However, there's no reason why sloppy-bad and wicked-bad couldn't coexist, so I'm not taking any comfort in the evidence of sheer incompetence. (Incidentally, if we are really positing a black-box nightmare, then presumably the system could be rigged to produce false tallies while linking every PIN to a correct ballot image. I would much rather just have paper ballots.)

[Usrename]

157. So... you would never buy one of these systems.

What I am saying is that no one would. Why design a product without a market? You couldn't sell these pieces of shit anywhere! In the whole world! No one is stupid enough or incompetent enough to purchase any product this crappy. And they are friggen expensive.

Now, add to this the fact that the guy who did build and sell them admitted that he would deliver Ohio for Bush, before the election.

Unlike autorank's burglary analogy, this is different. It's more like you have the guy on security tapes entering the house. All the good stuff is missing. But since he turned off the camera before he left with the goods someone winds up arguing "well, he could have broke in for some other reason than to steal stuff. May be he's incompetent. There's no proof that he took anything."

And of course since all the good stuff is missing, there is no missing stuff to show to anyone to prove that the stuff is missing.

Imagine it. No verification of the vote. No review of the proprietary software. No one would buy this. Ever! Why build it?

(Incidentally, if ANY verifiable system were rigged to produce false tallies and display a false ballot image, then the rigged system would be there as proof of the rigging.)

[autorank]

158. I bow to the superior analogist... n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

159. I see your point, I'm just not convinced

A lot of folks did buy those systems, and I haven't seen evidence that they are all corrupt. I assume some of them are, or at least got a little bit bent by lobbying money, but I bet these systems sounded mighty good to some election officials.

The Diebold CEO didn't "admit" that he would deliver Ohio -- he begged for campaign contributions. And were Diebold machines in Ohio at all? I think they had the op-scans (note: paper ballots) in Lucas and one other county. I think that is one of the most overrated arguments in the whole panoply. (Of course, the op-scan count in Lucas could be bogus, but that's a whole different argument.)

I dunno, Andrew Gumbel's account makes sense to me: "The story of e-voting in American post-2000 is not one of intricate connivance and grand-scale dastardly thinking, but rather one of shabbiness, complacency, laziness, mutual back-scratching, small-town networking, conflicts of interest, petty ambition, even pettier revenge, and an appalling lack of basic critical thinking." (Steal This Vote, p. 248) Of course, amidst all that shabbiness and complacency and laziness and such, who knows what else could have happened?

[Usrename]

160. I'm no voting expert. Not by a long shot. Counted votes once, is all.

But Bush v. Gore allowed some extra insight into this stuff. The FL case (in the lower court) had several experts. They all, to a person, testified that a hand count of paper ballots is the most accurate method of determining the outcome of an election. There was absolutly no dissent on this point by any expert. I believe it is actually well established law.

I trust that the experts know what they are doing. There is no expert to my knowledge that supports the vapor votes. So how come we use them. Obviously the answer is political. You say petty reasons. I say criminal intent.

Intent is what we are back to. Why build the vapor votes? You mention an an appalling lack of basic critical thinking in your post. I am trying to apply some basic critcal thinking to one simple question. Why vapor votes?

If there were even just one tiny display of ethical standards in this debacle that you could point to, I might pause and rethink this whole issue. But the obvious lack of any such evidence just makes that whole 'they're just dumb idiots' argument more difficult to wrap my brain around.

[OnTheOtherHand]

167. I basically agree about the experts, but...

How many of those experts have taken the position that DREs are a transparent attempt to steal elections? I'm not alone in _not_ having made that inference. Especially since as you construe it, it seems to apply not only to the manufacturers but to everyone who ever had anything to do with a purchasing decision.

I'm not trying to talk you out of anything. You've asked me questions, and I've answered them.

[Usrename]

162. The CEO of the company that makes the voting machines

openly campaigns for, raises money for, one of the candidates in the election that he is making the machines for to count the votes.

Ethical? Unethical? Weak argument? Strong argument?

Nah, not unethical. He's just stoopid and doesn't know any better.

Or, he's a criminal.

[OnTheOtherHand]

168. maybe he is a criminal, but this argument doesn't work for me

I'm not sure that he was under any ethical obligation not to fundraise for the Republicans, but assuming that he was, it doesn't make him a criminal. And contrariwise, I don't think it would be rational to trust DREs more if he had never expressed a political opinion in his life.

[Usrename]

179. Wow! I really have a problem with this.

If my job was making voting machines for the American people I would most likely bend over backwards to not be a partisan. I don't mean just not give the appearance of being partisan, which I also think is wrong.

If the party in power wanted one type of voting machine and the other party wanted something else, I would try to get to the bottom of it. I know I would. I would have a duty (patriotic duty even) to do so.

My ethical standards are not really that high. Believe me. I guess we can agree to disagree.

I keep saying no one would buy this crap for voting and you counter "well, people did buy them". It's like me saying that someone who makes couterfit prescription drugs is a criminal. No one would buy them. And the rebuttal is "well people did buy them so he can't be a criminal". It is exactly the same argument.

Why were these pieces of crap built in the first place? Because they knew the fix was in and they could get away with it. Honestly, until I hear some other plausible explanation of why someone would manufacture this crap.

[OnTheOtherHand]

182. we seem to be talking about several things at once

If I were a CEO, I would neither manufacture paperless DREs nor solicit large campaign contributions for George W. Bush. So you and I don't seem to differ there.

It's a bit pat to say that one party wanted one type of voting machine and the other wanted something else, because some of the early DRE adopters were Democrats.

I keep saying no one would buy this crap for voting and you counter "well, people did buy them". It's like me saying that someone who makes couterfit prescription drugs is a criminal. No one would buy them. And the rebuttal is "well people did buy them so he can't be a criminal". It is exactly the same argument.

Well, no. When people buy counterfeit prescription drugs, presumably they do so believing that the drugs are real. But I don't think anyone bought the paperless systems thinking they were paper systems. So I don't see how your analogy holds at all. What do you think were the motives for buying them?

[Usrename]

184. I think they were told that they worked and were suitable for use.

And they bought them.

They believed they were real.

I was stunned. Still am. There is no alternative to my premise that you think is "off".

[OnTheOtherHand]

187. Sorry, I'm lost

Are you saying that the buyers did think the machines had a paper trail? or just that they believed the security promises?

I am still trying to understand your argument. You stated upthread that "No one is stupid enough or incompetent enough to purchase any product this crappy." Did you mean that no one is stupid enough to purchase paperless DREs, or that no one is stupid enough to buy systems with known security problems? If the latter, then the question becomes, which security problems did the manufacturers deliberately build in, and why?

Lots of people think that no one could be stupid enough to buy Windows if they really understood how bad it is, certainly including security problems. I'm not sure how much it proves. Again, I will be more impressed with the force of your argument if you can demonstrate that folks like Doug Jones, Rebecca Mercuri, and David Dill agree with it. Maybe they do, but I'm not aware of it.

(We may have to try this "premise" thing one more time. It's true that I think there is an alternative to the premise that selling DREs was inherently malicious, but I'm in no position to know whether the alternative is correct. Again, I was trying to figure out why you were asking me a question about the manufacturers' motives for creating paperless DREs, which seemed to have nothing to do with the thread or my arguments, so I posited that maybe you had misunderstood my position.)

[Usrename]

188. I'll try to speak a little slower.

Voting has been around for a long time.

It is not new.

Neither are voting machines.

I decide to build a voting system that does not allow the vote to be verified.

I also decide not to allow anyone to review the proprietary software.

I make these decisions for a reason.

What is my reason for making them??????

[OnTheOtherHand]

191. well...

I make them paperless (I assume that's your point with respect to verification) because paperless appeals to election administrators, because it solves or "solves" a lot of problems for them (cf. Gumbel, p. 226).

I protect the source code because, well, I might have trade secrets, or my trade secret might be that the code was instamatic kludged garbage and I don't want anyone to see how bad it is. Of course, given the haste and the carelessness, it's possible that the source code might become publicly available anyway, so experts can actually document how bad it is -- and then my PR folks will have to claim that it's not true and besides, we already fixed it. This would not be unprecedented in the annals of technology development.

Again, why don't you go pick this fight with Gumbel, or Jones and Mercuri and Dill?

[Usrename]

192. Paperless is not my point or I would say so.

I've worked on a system to manage data from clinical drug trials. One of the players in that field features Web-based data entry, and a big selling point is that electronic auditing is easy and there is less need to "shuffle paper."

Electronic auditing. What a concept. You mention it. Not me. Why not use it in the voting machines? No paper required. And yet, no audit trail either. Hmmm. I just have to ask why.

I think you definitely nailed it about reviewing the source code. Yup!

85. Well, no, they haven't proven it. Sorry about that. n/t

I was just responding to your assertion that there's no proof that the election was stolen. I assumed that was what you meant by your post.

As far as the other people you mention, I don't know who they are. You posted in this thread making the claim that you are making.

Just trying to apply some critical thinking to your claim is all that I am about.

I understand that it hasn't been proven in court that it was stolen. But even the courts shouldn't stop critical thinking among us. They get it wrong sometimes too.

[OnTheOtherHand]

196. "You mention it. Not me."

Well, yes. You haven't shed much light on what makes a voting system adequately verifiable in your view, so I am pretty much guessing at your meaning, and therefore at your argument.

What sort of audit trail do you want? As I understand it, DREs store electronic images of the ballots cast, and that is construed as an audit trail. Probably neither of us regards it as adequate. But it's there.

Yes, I was responding to a post that asserted mathematical proof of fraud in Ohio -- which apparently you and I both interpreted as meaning proof that the election was stolen. Since as far as I know Diebold DREs weren't used anywhere in Ohio, I still don't see how your comments have been on point. But that's OK, it's certainly all part of the election reform picture.

If you don't know who Doug Jones, Rebecca Mercuri, and David Dill are, your knowledge of e-voting experts is pretty sketchy. Maybe that's a side issue as well. I'll just say again: there are plenty of DRE critics who don't regard their design as evidence of fraudulent intent. I don't really care whether I can convince you of that, although I would not encourage you to bet against me; I've simply tried to answer your questions.

[Zodiak]

71. I'm a screaming mad liberal pinko

that wishes to oust the damn usurpers from the WH in a frog-march.

But I like facts, and only facts. I support what you have to say if it is in the best interest of the community. Truthful people who want to conduct real strategies based on truth are welome here, in my opinion.

But I reserve the right to disagree, as always.

[anaxarchos]

136. So... Mr.Hand...

While I am talking to your scholarly alter ego just a few floors up, you are down here cutting political deals... Making alliances based on nothing other than political agreement. Lining up with those who agree that Bush won fair and square (it sure wasn't the strength of the argument that you were commenting on). More, I actually heard you making a direct appeal to a "silent majority". ...And laying out a political strategy for that as well.

The most hurtful blow would be that you ask me what appears to be an honest question upstairs, and then make fun of my answer before I have even given it, down here. Lucky thing I had already noticed this duality of behavior or I would have been genuinely wounded.

Instead, it seems to me that:

Your objection is not logical...
Your objection is not scientific...
Your objection is not because you are unusually reasonable...
Your objection is not because you are a partisan for the "truth"...

It occurs to me that your objection is because you are just a partisan.

Your objection is entirely political...

And, why not? It is not a crime. I don't think it makes you a Republican or anything remotely resembling one. Hell, I freely admit to being one myself (a partisan, that is... for the other opinion... although, i'm a guessin' it would be easier to change my mind than it would be to change yours)...

But I do have a question for you:

Why maintain the fiction of the other guy who is "undecided", etc?

Seems like a waste of time to me...

[OnTheOtherHand]

142. huh?

Dude, I have no idea what you are talking about. What political deals am I cutting?

Evidently each of us perceives the other as partisan; I won't chase you around the hamster cage on that.

I believe that Bush won the election; I am open to new arguments and evidence. It may be that I take your arguments less seriously than I should because I also observe that you rarely, if ever, take exception to any argument whatsoever on "your side" no matter how ridiculous. If "your side" could exercise a modicum of intellectual hygiene, we might actually get somewhere.

If you conclude that I am maintaining some fiction here, then you are confused.

[skipos]

63. even John Kerry didn't think he would clearly beat Bush

that's why he had the famed "$51 million war chest" saved up for when the election was decided in the courts.

I wish he would have spent that money in Ohio.

[Joe Chi Minh]

69. No, it was the most common and elementary strategem,

familiar to all political nuts: play down your chances, so the supporters don't get to feel complacent and stay at home, instead of voting.

[skipos]

70. He saved $51 mil to play head games with us?

I'll poltiely disagree with you on that one.

[Joe Chi Minh]

72. I'm sure there are a million and one ways

in which the money could be used to consolidate the Democratic party's political strength and thereby the welfare of the people. Not just the wealthiest 12%. Or is it 8%?

[Awsi Dooger]

75. We were relying on plenty of myths heading into 2004

Many of them are repeated atop this thread. Bush was not as unpopular as our blinders-on hatred wanted to insist. The approval rating on election day was basically 50/50. Our late registration drives were hardly unique or decisive. Anyone who followed politics closely after 2000 realized the GOP had put together a widespread and massive registration campaign. They just did it quietly and focused on doing the bulk of it early, not the last minute cram studying mode we relied on. I warned in GD 2004 that our registration edge was a myth. More than a hundred posts jumped all over me, insisting we would net 3% or more via new voters.

Oh yeah, cell phone users and how they're unrepresented in the polls. I guess we're ignoring that fantasy now. Check back exactly one year and you'll see a flood of cell phone threads.

How about 75% of the undecideds to Kerry as the challenger? That was ludicrous. If you study 50/50 races as I have, particularly with a well known high profile challenger, the undecideds never split in massive number to the challenger. I warned Truth Is All about that repeatedly, but he insisted on projecting huge numbers into his election model.

I already mentioned in a previous post in this thread how the country gives a phenomenal benefit of a doubt to incumbents if his party has been in office only one term, now 11 victories in 12 tries. I made a minor mistake earlier. Carter's re-election failure was obviously 1980, not 1976. Gore would have been in trouble in 2004, since it would have been our 3rd straight term in charge.

That link I've posted many times continues to be mostly ignored. The baseline truths are tucked primarily at the bottom, so I'll paste some of the key sections below: http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=750


"But in several key battleground states in other regions, notably Florida, Republicans have made gains. With its conservative Cuban-American population, the Sunshine State's Hispanic population is among the more politically diverse in the country, though Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 12 points during the late 1990s. Today, Republicans have a slight advantage over Democrats, 32% to 30%.

The Republican party's gains in affiliation, if sustained into next year's general elections, may produce small but nevertheless important changes in the terrain on which the elections will be fought. Compared with the 2000 campaign, Republicans now have an edge among registered voters in party identification in the states that have been voting their way over the past three election cycles, so-called Red states, and have achieved parity with the Democrats in swing states.

Swing states tilted nearly as Democratic as the Blue states in the late 1990s. Even after the 2000 election, Democrats maintained a 36% to 31% advantage over the Republicans in these states. But after 9/11, this gap closed: swing states now divide evenly: 33% Democratic, 33% Republican. Republicans have made notable gains in a number of key swing states. Michigan, Minnesota and Iowa, three Midwestern states Al Gore won in 2000 by very slight margins, have all experienced significant shifts in party ID toward the GOP. And the five-point advantage enjoyed by Democrats in Florida in the run-up to the 2000 election has evaporated. In polling since Sept 11, 2001, 37% of Floridians call themselves Republicans, 36% Democrats."

[BeFree]

81. Was it stolen?

I believe it was.

The evidence presented here bolsters the case that it was stolen.

For those of you who do not believe it was stolen, ask yourself this: Could it have been stolen?

If you have researched the e-voting machines, as many here have, you come to the conclusion that Yes, it could have been stolen.

Ok, now we are all on the same page. Where do we go from here? Knowing, as we do, that it could have been stolen, and knowing that the next election could be stolen, how do you go about keeping that from happening again?

Some of us, using the mantra 'It Was Stolen' are making an attempt to inform and educate voters. Basically: It happened once, it can happen again. Since we all agree it could have happened, we all agree it could happen again, right?

Since the absolute proof of the election being stolen has not yet come to light, our only course is to keep the fires burning. Some of you are throwing water on the fire, and that is NOT appreciated. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves. You know 2004 could have been stolen, and you know 2006 could be stolen. Either lead, follow or get the hell out of the way.

For those who are just plain stupid about e-voting, you are excused. But then, you really should get educated before showing your stupidity, eh?

[Cocoa]

82. the original poster said "challenge me"

and now you're saying people should be "ashamed" for doing just that.

The surest sign of a movement not to be trusted is when it vigorously discourages independent thought, and which emphasizes "I believe," and empty "kicked and nominateds", and is hostile to even the mildest questioning.

[BeFree]

84. Hah!

Questions are ok. It's comments like yours attempting to discredit the movement that are shameful.

Look up thread, I questioned. I challenged.

The problem is, as stated in the post you replied to, we all know it could have been stolen. Therefore, it behooves honest posters to not try and destroy the movement, but get with it.

I've read you for years now Cocoa, you are not an allie to the cause, are you?

[Cocoa]

87. I would never follow any person or group that talked like that

your argument against people questioning you is ridiculous and bizarre, and it's disappointing to me that more people here don't protest that attitude.

[BeFree]

88. I am not asking you to follow

I am saying that one should educate one's self. The Election Forum is a good place for education.

Let's be clear, some here are here to disrupt and destroy the campaign to take back the vote. Others just don't believe as strongly that it was stolen, again. We can deal with the questions, but disruptors are not appreciated.

[Cocoa]

89. how stupid do you think people are?

you were just emphatically urging people to follow, and now you simply flatly deny it? That's some crude shit.

[BeFree]

92. Easy there cocoa

The quote was: "Lead, follow or get out of the way". It's an old saying. That is hardly an 'emphatic' urging. But you did get the drift.

[Cocoa]

95. and repetitious

one post down:

"Therefore, it behooves honest posters to not try and destroy the movement, but get with it."

You just clearly told people twice to follow you, then you flatly deny it, and now you're parsing the word "emphatic."

Now I guess you'll take issue with the word "parse."

[BeFree]

97. Oh, dear cocoa

You have placed me at the lead of the movement. Hah! I am but a cog on the great wheel which will roll over and destroy all who get in our way.

Nice try, trying to destroy me with your words. But anyone can see it as a vain attempt.

[Cocoa]

98. not with my words

with your words, in italics.

[BeFree]

101. Now I see what you are saying

Yes, I am desiring people be honest with their postings. I make no apology for that. I try to be honest, and at that I either lead, follow, or get out of the way.

There are many honest posters here, and those, I will gladly follow.

[bettyellen]

113. how exactly did you challange him?

i looked upthread, and there was something vague about you aligning yourself with conyers.
if you don't belive fraud happened, why don't you post the specifics? it seems like you just want to talk semantics and split hairs about your right to dissent. yet, i saw no reasoned arguement against fraud from you. what's that about?

[Cocoa]

120. I didn't challenge him, others did

I've almost given up on talking substantively on DU about election reform. Literally years ago, I gave that up as a waste of energy and thought due to the crude dishonesty of the whole debate, and limited my contributions to what I think is the very important task of pointing out that dishonesty.

My initial post on this thread was in this vein. I made the point suggestively, let me make it explicit now: the original post in this thread destroys the credibility of the election reformers here because it is admitting you're simply not going to accept Bush could possibly have won. Incredibly, it is arguing that all allegations of fraud are automatically true, because of what we think of Bush.

It is actually saying that no evidence is necessary.

So one wonders about all the evidence that is presented, how could anyone take it seriously when the researchers have already admitted their minds were made up already?

The most incredible thing is that the original poster would admit it, they must know the listeners are well trained enough not to notice what I'm pointing out.

[bettyellen]

122. i don't read any of this into the OP, and it's really hard for me

to understand why someone would work for election reform, and then do a 180 and concentrate on discrediting those who do. if i still have it wrong, i do apologise. i have no idea what your history or experience has been.
i just don't think i read all that into the OP. but my history with voting activists has been uh, varied, and not entirely negative, so i guess i have a different POV.
and like it or not with the vapor ballots, you and i both know how difficult it will to find direct evidence- i think thats a given. like it or not cocoa, all we have is to follow up on the investigations that are going on. i have, and see, no reason not to support them.
tks for trying to clear it up though. when people have these long standing histories or whatever, sometimes their alluions or verbal shorthand gets confusing.

[Cocoa]

123. I also defend election reformers

for example election reformers who put e-voting issues down on the list of priorities, behind other problems like access to polls, and actually advocate increased use of electronic voting machines as a way to combat disenfranchisement of groups of voters. Of course the de-emphasis on voting machines causes these reformers to be trashed as enemy symps and I have come to their defense.

[bettyellen]

131. i wish we here could always emphasize the positive changes they are

working towards instead of wasting time infighting. as much as i think the machines are a huge priority and we have to strive towards an auditable paper trail, that's my thing- i have no wish to shove it down others throats, i support those that increase awareness, and never imagine the two efforts are competing. i'm happy you're doing what you're doing, it's incredibly worthy. i live in a hotbed, one of the birthing centers of election fraud- and it's all dem- and i hear the computers are making it harder. that's great, but all this was local level- lots of $$$ involved, voters names handed over in paper bags on street corners. sweet litttle old ladies refusing challangers from doing their jobs and campaign workers delivering booths with broken seals. hundred of people filmed going into three precints to vote and being paid 50$ as campaign workers. i think it's the same thing on a much bigger scale, a variety of dirty tricks, but i believe the computers are the newest wrinkle. they sure don't help voter confidence and apathy. so it's all important to me.
i think the computers are inevitable, and we have to work within that to ensure good auditing is possible, that recounts happen without waiting months. a lot in the process needs to change. i soo have to get some sleep now. g'night.

[OnTheOtherHand]

140. hi, just as a point of information on the OP

anaxarchos is firmly convinced that Bush could not have won, and most of the OP is laying out his argument, and I don't object to that. (Cocoa may, but I doubt he would have gotten this hot if the OP had stuck to politics.)

What I vehemently object to is the insistence that the case is "airtight," and the insinuation that anyone who isn't convinced by it is among the "Republicans," and the insinuation elsewhere that anyone who questions it is damaging the movement, and the endearing thought that a "great wheel... will roll over and destroy all who get in our way" (#97). I don't think all this has anything to do with following up on and supporting investigations. It's a weird impulse that I don't want to see in a progressive movement. And I absolutely agree with you that it doesn't characterize all voting activists by a long shot. (In fact, I don't think I disagree with anything you wrote; I'm just amplifying some points.)

[autorank]

127. The Mystery Revealed...

I didn't want to comment on your cryptic post earlier. Lets drop the authority by autobiography and deal with your elaboration:

"the original post in this thread destroys the credibility of the election reformers here because it is admitting you're simply not going to accept Bush could possibly have won. Incredibly, it is arguing that all allegations of fraud are automatically true, because of what we think of Bush."

"original post" destroys ... credibility of election reformers" Why? "because ... Bush won."

Stunning. You know Bush won, you deny your friend Rep. Conyers assertion that "hundreds of thousand" of voters were "affected" in Ohio, mostly minority districts, you deny the right of election reformers to challenge a stolen election. Curious logic. I like Conyers, I agree with him, his report influenced my thinking profoundly and I don't hear him saying we're destroying the "credibility of election reform." Find me a quote or ask him to post here (it's a friendlier venue for him the DKOS, I suspect, given the hostility to fraud research there).

"allegations of fraud...true" based on our opinion of Bush.

Again stunning. We don't have to think anything of Bush. Just look at the evidence. Wins Florida because of the "felon purge" by his brother, a premeditated act of election fraud. Declares war on a country that did not attack us or menace us killing tens of thousands, costing $300 billion to date...for what? Trashes social programs. Increases poverty through his policies. Attempts to destroy Social Security (our one big win). Lets people drown, starve, be victimized, see their home and city ruined for days before he acts.

We would suspect such a politician of committing election fraud? How dare we, you say.

The foul record of Bush is enough to suspect him of many things, including election fraud. It doesn't prove that he did it; it is the justification for suspicion where evidence exists. Nobody on this board who is serious said Bush's foul record proves election fraud. That's another red herring.

Your elucidation of the cryptic argument lacks any logic or persuasive power.

True election reform means free and fair elections with verifiable voting, tabulation, and results. Find me more than 0.05% of Americans opposed to that. Are you saying that because a few people who get no publicity cause these election reforms harm? That's lacking in any logic. Decent Americans of all stripes stop supporting free and fair elections because a tiny group of activists say Bush stole the election. That simply doesn't fly.

[OnTheOtherHand]

141. nope

It's sort of amazing that you would quote someone accurately and then misquote him immediately afterwards. Do you really not see a difference between "Bush could possibly have won" and "Bush won"? Do you expect no one else to notice? Are you so used to thinking in absolutes that words like "could" and "possibly" don't even register? Do you really not see how rhetoric like "airtight" changes the character of the argument? Or do you just think that this particular polemical line is politically effective even though it alienates even many DUers?

If you don't see why this kind of behavior hurts not only your credibility but the credibility of your allies, well, it is just too bad.

[autorank]

150. When you don't have a point, argue character. Clever but obvious

Let's stick to the point. You claim that the election reform movement is harmed by election fraud proponents. That is strange, in the extreme. Everyone acknowledges that the election fraud movement gets NO press. So, all of your judgmentalism and character comments pop up.

Cocoa, tell me, just how is the public turned off to election reform by election fraud advocates WHEN THOSE ADVOCATES GET NO PUBLICITY.



ps. I'm not taking your personal attack bait. :)

[autorank]

152. Please note: This message was/is intended for COCOA n/t

[autorank]

119. No need for shame...Conyers said Ohio was a stinking rotten electoin.

He said that Republican strategies affected hundreds of thousands of votes (in mostly minority districts). Read the report. Your positions are hardly the type that are wrapped in the glory of a great American politician. He want there after the election, he was the only official investigation of Ohio that was on the scene. He did so, I'm sure, at risk of limb and life...and then the great man starts a blog and keeps going in all the right directions...

Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong In Ohio

We have found numerous, serious election irregularities in the Ohio presidential election, which resulted in a significant disenfranchisement of voters. Cumulatively, these irregularities, which affected hundreds of thousand of votes and voters in Ohio, raise grave doubts regarding whether it can be said the Ohio electors selected on December 13, 2004, were chosen in a manner that conforms to Ohio law, let alone federal requirements and constitutional standards.

This report, therefore, makes three recommendations:
(1) consistent with the requirements of the United States Constitution concerning the counting of electoral votes by Congress and Federal law implementing these requirements, there are ample grounds for challenging the electors from the State of Ohio;
(2) Congress should engage in further hearings into the widespread irregularities reported in Ohio; we believe the problems are serious enough to warrant the appointment of a joint select Committee of the House and Senate to investigate and report back to the Members; and (3) Congress needs to enact election reform to restore our people's trust in our democracy. These changes should include putting in place more specific federal protections for federal elections, particularly in the areas of audit capability for electronic voting machines and casting and counting of provisional ballots, as well as other needed changes to federal and state election laws.

With regards to our factual finding, in brief, we find that there were massive and unprecedented voter irregularities and anomalies in Ohio. In many cases these irregularities were caused by intentional misconduct and illegal behavior, much of it involving Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio.

First, in the run up to election day, the following actions by Mr. Blackwell, the Republican Party and election officials disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of Ohio citizens, predominantly minority and Democratic voters:

* The misallocation of voting machines led to unprecedented long lines that disenfranchised scores, if not hundreds of thousands, of predominantly minority and Democratic voters. This was illustrated by the fact that the Washington Post reported that in Franklin County, "27 of the 30 wards with the most machines per registered voter showed majorities for Bush. At the other end of the spectrum, six of the seven wards with the fewest machines delivered large margins for Kerry." (See Powell and Slevin, supra). Among other things, the conscious failure to provide sufficient voting machinery violates the Ohio Revised Code which requires the Boards of Elections to "provide adequate facilities at each polling place for conducting the election."
* Mr. Blackwell's decision to restrict provisional ballots resulted in the disenfranchisement of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of voters, again predominantly minority and Democratic voters. Mr. Blackwell's decision departed from past Ohio law on provisional ballots, and there is no evidence that a broader construction would have led to any significant disruption at the polling places, and did not do so in other states.
* Mr. Blackwell's widely reviled decision to reject voter registration applications based on paper weight may have resulted in thousands of new voters not being registered in time for the 2004 election.
* The Ohio Republican Party's decision to engage in preelection "caging" tactics, selectively targeting 35,000 predominantly minority voters for intimidation had a negative impact on voter turnout. The Third Circuit found these activities to be illegal and in direct violation of consent decrees barring the Republican Party from targeting minority voters for poll challenges.
* The Ohio Republican Party's decision to utilize thousands of partisan challengers concentrated in minority and Democratic areas likely disenfranchised tens of thousands of legal voters, who were not only intimidated, but became discouraged by the long lines. Shockingly, these disruptions were publicly predicted and acknowledged by Republican officials: Mark Weaver, a lawyer for the Ohio Republican Party, admitted the challenges "can't help but create chaos, longer lines and frustration."
* Mr. Blackwell's decision to prevent voters who requested absentee ballots but did not receive them on a timely basis from being able to receive provisional ballots 6 likely disenfranchised thousands, if not tens of thousands, of voters, particularly seniors. A federal court found Mr. Blackwell's order to be illegal and in violation of HAVA.

[bettyellen]

93. thanks, be free. i don't know why anyone wants to say they know

nothing happened. when the anecdotal evidence alone are jaw droppingly scary. it's been such a long hard road to get these cases in to court, and i feel they dishonor the effort without anything to back up their own side. i get the feeling you'd find out , many of em did not like kerry as the pick, and wanna say "i told you so" more than they care about the truth.
i hope the truth about ohio comes out, god help us all if it doesn't.

[Cocoa]

96. who's saying they "know nothing happened"?

I for sure would never say such a thing, that would be ridiculous.

John Conyers, like me, never said he "knows" the 2004 election wasn't stolen, what he did say, like me, is that he doesn't have the proof that it WAS stolen.

[bettyellen]

99. i've heard others here say it. why are you responding to me?

do you think you've given people the impression that you "think" it hasn't been stolen? not sure your naysaying is all about. i'd love some clarification.

[Cocoa]

102. I was pointing out what I see as a straw man in your post

there are very few (open) dissenters to the stolen election theory, and I'm not aware of any of us claiming they "know nothing happened," as you put it.

It would be ridiculous to say we know nothing happened, and as one of the dissenters I'm disputing what I saw as trying to make me (and John Conyers) look ridiculous.

[bettyellen]

107. john coyners supports trying to find out what happened and i don't

know that he's out trying to discourage people from following up on possible fraud. and there are a few open dissenters, and as much as they seem compelled to throw their 2 cents in every election fraud thread, and say things like it wasn't or couldn't have been stolen, face up, we lost fair and square, etc etc etc. i've seen in manys a time since november. and i've noticed that they don't provide any explainations for things that have happened. the nature of vote flipping inside a computer is probably going to be impossible to prove, the ballot was "vapor", gone. the only way to show what happened is polls and statistical analysis. yet people insist on hard proof, now, when there is no proving how anyone voted with these machines. there is an urgent need to prevent more elections without ballots or anything hard and auditable. there is an urgent need to go into places like ohio where whole communities had tallies that were not improbable, but impossible.
like you, their concern is "looking ridiculous", so they put a wet blanket on things and hope people will shut up about it. i just don't see the point. the system was designed to make fraud easy, and it desperately needs an overhaul. why people would want to put a damper on that is beyond me.

[Cocoa]

110. John Conyers, like me, supports finding out what happened

and he encourages everyone to do the same.

But he is against making assertions of something so serious without proof, exactly because of how serious it is. Is he putting a wet blanket on you by saying this?

[bettyellen]

112. i know he supports the investigations in Ohio.

and from your posts on this thread i have no sense if you do. it would seem not, but i'm not sure. of where you are on this, except some vague sense of embarrassment. people believe this happened, i believe it, i think it's pointless to spit hairs over the use of the word "know" instead of believe. if that embarrasses you, i'm very sorry for your sensitivity. but it does seem you want to be discouraging, and once again, i can't say i know why.

[Cocoa]

118. so do I

just so there's no confusion, I support the investigations in Ohio.

And I've supported paper trails from the beginning, I believe I might be the person who brought Rush Holt's initial paper trail legislation to DU's and Bev Harris's attention, way way back when, when I thought she was legit. And my Congressman Danny Davis became one of the first cosponsors of that legislation. I'm not taking credit for it, but he did sign on just days after I discussed it at length with his staff person.

And still I had to keep answering, over and over, "do you or don't you support paper trails?"

So yes, I do support investigations of election fraud allegations, to answer your question.

[bettyellen]

124. good to know.

it's unfortunate the stink bev put on this whole thing. i'm sorry if any of it rubbed off on you the way it did with andy so unfortunately while he was waiting for surgery. i was glad he just picked himself and went on to put so much energy into educating people in his last months despite her and bbv.

[autorank]

116. Here's part of what happened....

Eye On Ohio:

http://hamburgsteak.sandwich.net/mirrors/EyeOnOhio/

Ideally, the discussion here will demonstrate--to some degree--that there was an attempt by various individuals, as possibly coordinated attempts, to "dishonestly deprive people of their legal rights." In our justice system, the standard of "reasonable suspicion" is the standard used to determine if the police can stop your car and search for drugs, sometimes if a warrant can be issued for you arrest, etc. Basically, it refers to the facts or circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to suspect that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed.6 Is there reasonable suspicion of a crime (i.e. fraud) here? Would a reasonable person, upon reviewing the following, suspect a crime has been, or is being, committed?

• Voters told they can't vote.
• Voters scared away from the polls.
• Election officials conspiring to deprive African-American precincts of voting machines
• Election officials prohibiting individuals from viewing public documents?
• There being more ballots cast than registered voters?
• Having your ballot already marked for Bush?
• Having voting companies "fiddle" with machines during a recount, when the machines were not malfunctioning
• Having the voting company instruct poll workers on how to read "cheat sheets"
• The exit polls being so off the mark, when they are traditionally quite reliable.

Any of these would give rise to a reasonable suspicion that fraud has been committed, and would prompt an investigation. Yet, despite all this, there has not been any real investigation by the proper authorities into this issue.

For all those saying that there is not enough evidence to investigate, realize that what was described in this paper would be enough to issue warrants, to interrogate individuals, to possibly arrest. For all those crying out that there is no actionable fraud, realize that legally, there is not only a reasonable suspicion, but likely probable cause to believe fraud occurred in Ohio.

Finally, for those who say there hasn't been definitive proof of fraud, it must be said that asking for proof of fraud before it's been investigated is illogical. The evidence presented here, the totality of the circumstances, is such that the burden should now shift to the implicated parties to prove that the election was cleanand legitimate.

[autorank]

117. Here is some Ohio information. What a joke of an election.

Trying to turn Conyers into a "skeptic" or "doubter" won't cut it.

Look at this.

Fuzzy Math and Ohio Irregularities
http://hamburgsteak.sandwich.net/mirrors/EyeOnOhio/

• All absentee voters must be identified as such by name and residence in the precinct poll books of the precinct in which they are registered. Over 100 precinct poll books in Trumbull County were checked for absentee voters and that number of actual absentee voters was compared to the certified number of absentee votes. There was an inflated difference in nearly every precinct of the five communities examined. The five communities whose poll books were carefully inspected for an absentee vote overcount are: Warren City (311), Howland Township (138), Newton Falls City (34), Girard City (57), and Cortland Township (40). The 106 precincts of these five Ohio communities, about 39% of all precincts in Trumbull County, netted a total of 580 absentee votes for which there were no absentee voters identified in the poll books."93
• Franklin County reported a striking peculiarity in its "Unofficial Abstract of Votes" published on its web site on Nov 3, 2004. Two separate bundles of absentee ballots, labeled "Absentee 1" and "Absentee 2", reported suspiciously identical totals of 20,680. Not one vote off, but two separate batches of absentee ballots, exactly the same.94
• The "too close for comfort" numbers don't stop there. In the "Official Abstract of Votes" published on the Franklin County web site after certification (Dec 6, 2004), two other totals of absentee ballots were 23,710 and 23,403. Remarkably close.95
• "When there are more votes than voters, there is a big problem" stated Dr. Werner Lange, who examined the discrepancy between absentee voters on the rolls and ballots cast.
• "The absentee vote inflation rate for five communities < investigated by Dr. Lange> averages 5.5 fraudulent voters per precinct. If this pattern of inflated absentee votes holds for all of Ohio's 11,366 precincts, then there were some 62,513 absentee votes in Ohio up for grabs in the last election. Who grabbed them and how they did so should be the subject of an immediate congressional investigation."96
• An error with an electronic voting system gave President Bush 3,893 extra votes in suburban Columbus. Franklin County's unofficial results had Bush receiving 4,258 votes to Democrat John Kerry's 260 votes in a precinct in Gahanna. Records show only 638 voters cast ballots in that precinct. Bush's total should have been recorded as 365.97
• A down-ticket Democrat polled 257,000 more votes than Kerry in Ohio. If true -- and the web site offers some county-by-county vote figures -- that's very odd, as barring the most unusual circumstances the top of the ticket polls well ahead of candidates with very limited advertising budgets.98
• In Cuyahoga County, third party candidates received nearly as many votes as Kerry. Because there was more than one precinct voting in a given room, and because placement on the ballot alternates with precincts, it is highly probable that ballots for Precinct A were used on Precinct B's punch card machines, thus causing the startling anomaly. This issue was not addressed during the subsequent Ohio recount.
• Electronic voting machines where apparently equipped with a default setting, which was for Bush.99
• There are reports of voters received pre-punched ballots with Bush already selected.100
• In Warren County, as soon as voting was finished and it came time to count the votes, Election officials issued a "lockdown", prohibiting the press form viewing the counting of the ballots and conducting the tabulation in a locked room. The press was not even allowed into the building. Initially, Warren County officials claimed they received a level "10" FBI terror threat, but the FBI said it never issued such a warning.101

[Cocoa]

125. why do you even need any of that?

you have proven in your original post that it was impossible for Bush to have won.

Another question, what good is any of that information, given that you have admitted you are not open to the possibility that the election was not stolen?

These are rhetorical questions, by the way.

[autorank]

132. I'm open to the possibility that this is but a dream...but I like evidence

Facts, facts, facts...from Conyers and the great freedom fighters in Ohio. Bears reapeating, often.

Rhetoric abounds.

[autorank]

138. Do prosecutors have the "proof" when the investigate a treason?

No, they have a suspicion...and when special proescutor work is done properly, they have a pretty strong suspicion. We saw this with prosecutor Fitzgerald in Illinois when his honest suspicion sn turned into targets of investigation which then resulted in trials and convictions. May he repeat his pattern.

We have enough evidence from multiple sources to convene a full, independent, vigorous, well funded investigation. It's only been 10 months. Do we give up on crimes that occurred only 10 months ago? Do we give up on the theft of the Presidency 10 months ago when our suspicions are strong enough to have a full blown investigation. We certainly do not and can not.

Let's ask Rep. Conyers if he thinks there is enough evidence of election fraud to convene a full scale investigation of the 2004 Presidential election (and hope that the investigator branches out to 2002 Georgia, that one still galls many).

You can't ask for "proof" prior to an investigation. That is putting the cart before the horse. You ask for an investigation based on enough evidence to generate strong suspicions and targets of that investigation.

[autorank]

111. People who say nothing happened should read The Conyers Report,

Steal this Vote, and the many other sources on the gross examples of fraud in OH, NM, FL and elsewhere. Or they should respond to Anaxarchos post on South Florida this election. Or better yet, follow the Ohio scandal unraveling on

http://www.newsnow.co.uk/newsfeed/?name=Ohio+Recount

or check out

www.verifiedvoting.org

or check out

www.votersunite.org

or check out

www.GregPalast.com

or check out

http://www.scoop.co.nz/features/usacoup.html
(American Coup II)

or recall and review the threads on Andy Stephenson and his fate for fighting for election integrity.

Here is a list of just the latest from the first site referenced on Ohio. Read it and get an education.

Ohio Recount Earlier

2 to 4 hours old

Youngstown mayor crosses aisle to oppose election issues Ohio News Network 23:44 11-Oct-05

6 to 8 hours old

Blackwell and Strickland Lead in Ohio Political Wire (Weblog) 20:39 11-Oct-05

Yesterday

Eaton to conduct public forum on school finances Pal-item.com, Indiana 18:13 11-Oct-05

Opponents of embryonic stem cell research fight bond issue Ohio News Network 17:11 11-Oct-05

Ohio Reporter Hid GOP Scandal Until After Election Dirty Tricks (Weblog) 16:55 11-Oct-05

Ohio Voter Registration Deadline Today WCPO-TV, Ohio 16:55 11-Oct-05

November 8 Registration Deadline Looms WHIOTV.com, Ohio 16:44 11-Oct-05



High Court Clears Way For Vote On Proposal To Slash Tax Levy WHIOTV.com, Ohio 14:41 11-Oct-05

Class of '06 votes for university gift The Lantern, Ohio 14:11 11-Oct-05

Bellbrook City Council Votes To Rezone Land WHIOTV.com, Ohio 12:15 11-Oct-05

Today is deadline to register to vote Dayton Daily News, Ohio 11:26 11-Oct-05

Mason rollback referendum on ballot Cincinnati Enquirer, Ohio 10:50 11-Oct-05


Supreme Court ruling clears way for vote on proposal to slash tax levy Ohio News Network 07:58 11-Oct-05

Earlier News

Tuesday is last day to register to vote Zanesville Times Recorder, Ohio 18:29 10-Oct-05

Ottawa County elections board to extend hours The Toledo Blade, Ohio 12:56 10-Oct-05

Issue 1 resolution The Lantern, Ohio 09:09 10-Oct-05

Blogs and Campaigns MyDD (Weblog) 16:43 9-Oct-05

The Murrow-McCarthy clash isn't old news to Clooney SouthCoastToday.com, Massachusetts 05:30 9-Oct-05


Issue Four aims for more competitive races Dayton Daily News, Ohio 05:05 9-Oct-05

Village takes steps to dissolve Cincinnati Enquirer, Ohio 10:42 8-Oct-05

Few Ohio voters showing at polls Cincinnati Enquirer, Ohio 10:42 8-Oct-05

Democrats' Senate competition raises Ohio's election profile Cincinnati Enquirer, Ohio 10:42 8-Oct-05

Ohio Senate plans own version of vote by mail Cincinnati Enquirer, Ohio 10:42 8-Oct-05



Registration site: Democrats’ Senate competition raises Ohio’s 2006 election profile The Repository, Ohio 09:29 8-Oct-05

Registration site: Senate plans own version of vote by mail ahead of election The Repository, Ohio 08:27 8-Oct-05

Spotlight shines on Senate race Cincinnati Post 06:37 8-Oct-05

Senate plans its own version of vote by mail ahead of ballot question Ohio News Network 00:14 8-Oct-05

Democrats' Senate competition raises Ohio's 2006 election profile Ohio News Network 22:49 7-Oct-05



Senate plans its own version of vote by mail WKRC 12 Cincinatti 22:09 7-Oct-05

Voting reform facing test in Ohio NorthJersey.com 14:53 7-Oct-05

Ohio Democrats press case Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, Indiana 11:05 7-Oct-05

Issue backers taking advantage of scandal Zanesville Times Recorder, Ohio 18:15 6-Oct-05

Absentee voters can begin casting ballots Pal-item.com, Indiana 18:02 6-Oct-05



Issue 1: Court given 'single subject' challenge ThisWeek Reynoldsburg 15:14 6-Oct-05

Council candidate dealt court setback The Toledo Blade, Ohio 11:50 6-Oct-05

Democrats hope timing is right Cincinnati Enquirer, Ohio 10:31 6-Oct-05

How redistricting proposal would work Ohio News Network 19:54 5-Oct-05

Backers of Ohio issues taking advantage of investment scandal Ohio News Network 19:39 5-Oct-05



Registration site: Dems pursue Ohio election system overhaul The State, South Carolina 18:27 5-Oct-05

Hackett v. Brown in Ohio Dem Senate Primary Simianbrain (Weblog) 18:13 5-Oct-05

[The Magistrate]

100. For The Record, Mr. Free

Members of this forum have a perfect right to express their opinion on this matter, as they do on any other. Telling people they should not express a view different from yours, or should be ashamed of expressing a view different from yours, is inappropriate behavior that is not going to be tolerated in the General Discussion: Politics forum.

[BeFree]

103. Sir

I appreciate that. My construction was that those who desire to destroy the movement need to be aware that such actions are tantamount to further injuring our now fragile democracy. Elections are the roots on which democracy flourishes, and our fear is that the roots are in dire need of defense from everyone, and especially those of this magnificent forum.

That democracy, I am sure you would agree, is worth fighting for, eh?

[The Magistrate]

128. It Is A Prerequisite For Debate, Mr. Free

That persons on either side remain open to the possibility they may be wrong in their view, and accept that persons have a right to press views different from theirs. People debating the subject of the recent election, and future elections, need to bear this in mind, and conduct themselves accordingly.

[autorank]

108. For the record.

Mr. Magistrate, this is your second intervention in this thread. The first was to garner the source of an obscure reference to line from a horror film, an unusual inquiry.

Now, Mr. Free's post is questioned. The comment about lead, follow, etc. could certainly not be considered offensive since its uttered all the time in inspirational settings all over this country from political rallies, to board rooms, to football locker rooms.

If this statement was the source of your concern: "For those who are just plain stupid about e-voting, you are excused. But then, you really should get educated before showing your stupidity, eh?" let me point out the following. The predicate is "stupid about e-voting", a legitimate argument for someone to make given a lack of understanding displayed about e-voting (the repository of our democracy now and a total mess). That predicate is the reference for "share you stupidity." Mr. Free was not making a random personal remark but one that referenced asserted (and I believe accurate) limitations in understanding.

If we're not supposed to use "stupid" e.g., stupid reasoning, or "stupidity", e.g, in reference to that reasoning fine but this was not a personal attack, it was a reference to the logic or lack thereof in the post.

Are we now in a position where vigorous debate is challenged as unfair when people passionate about election fraud make their case?

[The Magistrate]

130. At The Risk Of Repeating Myself, Sir

Statements to the effect that members of Democratic Undergrouns should not state a view in opposition to the view held by a particular member, and statements that members should be ashamed of expressing views different from the view held by some member, are inappropriate. General Discussion: Politics is an "above the fold" forum, frequented by people with a great variety of views on many political matters. It is not a Group with a charter to exclude those who do not share the orientation of its membership.

[loudsue]

177. Mr. Magistrate: I believe the charter DOES exclude those

who "do not share the orientation of its membership".

According to RULE #1 (as posted under "RULES"):

1. Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates.

Unfortunately, these days, FAIR ELECTIONS, and actually COUNTING VOTES, happens to be a pretty "progressive" idea. How it got that way is an unfortunate, and ugly story.

:kick:

[IndianaGreen]

94. Challenge you?

Hey, here is a beer buddy! Let's throw some darts at my Bush dartboard.

:beer:

[autorank]

106. :)

:beer: for you too, and on St. Pats day we will drink green beer.

[brindis_desala]

109. The issue remaining is not "proving" that 2004 was stolen

but PREVENTING future fraud now that we KNOW that paperless electronic voting machines make a mockery of "fair elections". I would urge DUers and activists to re-read this article:

Evidence of a Second Bush Coup?
By Robert Parry
November 6, 2004

< >
The highly secretive practice of “cyber-warfare” has advanced far more than many Americans understand, with U.S. intelligence agencies pioneering methods for surreptitiously entering enemy computer systems.

Through the 1990s, the CIA and the U.S. military aggressively expanded “cyber-war” capabilities, bringing online powerful computer systems and recruiting some of the nation’s best hackers, intelligence sources say. During the CIA’s recruitment rush, some hackers were hired despite criminal records and questionable backgrounds. One got in trouble when he was found masturbating in front of his computer screen.

By the mid-1990s, cyber-war – also known as "information warfare" – was such a hot topic within the U.S. military that the Pentagon produced a breezy 13-page booklet called "Information Warfare for Dummies."

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2004/110604.html

Faith-based balloting is the fast lane to voter cynicism and a death march for democratic government.

[autorank]

114. This is why THEY MUST HAVE MACHINES & HAVA is the midwife.

Why did the Bush administration give $26 million to Louisiana in 2004 for voting machines AND deny Louisiana $24 million in 2004 for levee maintenance? Because the need to get that state in the permanent win column.

Great line: "Faith-based balloting is the fast lane to voter cynicism and a death march for democratic government."

It's a death march indeed, paved with the stones placed by the "trusting" who offer no solutions.

We can settle the issue right not. The following is a near fool proof method of taking our elections back. It's a compilation of various folks ideas but why not? Can't think of a single reason except to perpetuate the "faith based" balloting that ensures the Republicans a victory whenever they want.

SIMPLE, INEXPENSIVE, IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE REFORM TO THE VOTING SYSTEM:

1) Free and fair elections, transparent and open to all.

• Motor voter registration.
• Other easy access registrations.
• Any ID will do that has a picture or is deemed appropriate.
• No "new" ID's, no voter ID's.
• Early voting starting the Saturday prior to the Constitutionally mandated date all over the country.
• Elections administered by non-elected officials supervised by independent auditors (as in multiple auditors).


2) Simple solutions to ensure free and fair elections

• Paper ballots marked with a stamp in a closed voting booth.
• Hand counts of paper ballots by volunteers without a strongly identifiable partisan bias; with partisan representatives looking on.
• Public announcements of precinct total published in a variety of media (including the Internet).
• Public transmittal of the announced results to central tabulation center(s).
• Visible presentation of the results received at the central tabulator facility via television, the Internet, etc. with a check by each precinct and party precinct representatives.
• Totals that everyone can live with, verify, and know occurred.
• Preservation of the ballots indefinitely in appropriately monitored facilities.
• The use of symbols or pictures for those who can't read and the ready availability of those ballots and the use of voting machines to accommodate the handicapped (we certainly have enough now).

No levers, no punch cards, no scantron ballots, no DRE's, no mediation at all...just paper, an ink stamp, and a private place.

3) General political awareness through public awareness of the need for change NOW, including the use of any and all available means to raise that consciousness.

4) Specific political awareness of the fact that election fraud in 2000 was a race crime ("felons" list) and resulted in a stolen election and that it's been a race crime as long as we've had "spoilage" and continues to be one right through Ohio. It's not exclusively a race crime by any means, but that was clearly the overriding focus and, judging by the result, the goal. This needs to be emphasized as an equity issue.

5) Support of all types of election monitoring, including: private foundations or other forums to evaluate elections, equipment, etc.; political parties or nonpartisan groups to implement audits; exit polls designed to catch fraud (although the paper ballot process, with full participation, would make this an afterthought).

6) Recognition that voting rights is a potent issue that crosses the political spectrum.

[AX10]

126. I agree with you. Bush stole the election, twice.

[GayCanuck]

144. I'm guessing

that if all registered Dmeocrats voted in your country a repub would never win.

The issue seems to be that people just don't care enough to vote. A voter turnout of registered voters of 56%, although higher in 2004 is still pathetic.

[autorank]

149. You are right. n/t

[Usrename]

154. Nope!

If all Dems voted it would just mean that they would have to steal that many more votes. They don't cheat any harder than they have to in order to win.

[Catherine Vincent]

156. Bush's presidency has always been illegitimate in my eyes

2000 and 2004.

[Rhiannon12866]

161. Thanks so much for posting this! I'm bookmarking it. But you'll get no

argument or challenge from me. I know damn well that Bush* is illegitimate. He stole the election in 2000, via Florida, and in 2004, in Ohio and New Mexico. We all know that Al Gore won Florida and that Kerry really carried Ohio and New Mexico. As far as I'm concerned, an idiot like Bush*, no matter who he's got pulling the strings, couldn't possibly win without cheating. The fact that he did as well as he did, discounting the cheating, came as a huge shock to me. Even somebody who'd just awoken from a coma could easily see that this guy is not someone who should be trusted to run the country...:grr:

[autorank]

163. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. FL 2000 is still hard to take.

The "felon purge" and disenfranchisement of 50,000 black Floridians was a crime of epic proportions. They could have hung all the chads they wanted, these 50,000 would have done the trick. Yet our country rolled over and took it. Very sad. No more, not any more!

[Rhiannon12866]

166. You're welcome, and I know. I still don't understand how this was allowed

to happen, since we all understand the illegitimacy of this election. Yet Bush* moved in and moved on, as if he had a mandate! The fact that Gore won is obvious and I can't help but think what a huge difference his presidency would have made in this country, for ordinary citizens, in our history, and in the perception of the rest of the world! It's just mind-boggling!;(

But 2004 hit much closer to home with me, since I thought we were prepared for this. I finally went to bed after 3am, on election night, after hearing Dan Rather say that we wouldn't know the results for 12 days, since that's how long it would take for the provisional ballots to be opened in Ohio. But I was awakened the next day, by a phone call from a friend, telling me that Kerry had just conceded. I was totally dumbfounded, since I was well aware of all the voting irregularities that had yet to be investigated. And, of course, I belong to DU. But, from what I've read, Kerry did win, as well. Why we didn't fight for this remains a complete mystery to me.:shrug::-(

Kerry Won. Here are the Facts. by Greg Palast.
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=392&row=1

[newspeak]

164. okay, I'm from Nevada

a swing state---voter outreach came in-Democratic registrations were destroyed, a repuke judge decided that those people could not re-register. More than half of the machines in my precinct were paperless--and I thought all of Nevada were papered machines. My in-laws voted where there were only two papered machines, the rest paperless. One of the papered machines was out of service. Don't tell me something wasn't going on!!!!!

[autorank]

165. Isn't it outrageous. And nobody is banging on tables.

I sent this to your Senator's DEM leadershpi web site:

http://giveemhellharry.com/page/petition/story

Hope he reads it.

---------------------------------------

I'm sick and tired of America surrendering its election process to three major voting machine firms (Diebold, ESS, & Sequoia) that are run by extremely partisan Republicans AND I'm even sicker and more tired of the nonsense that our elections mean anything.

We vote, it goes into hardware and software owned by these vendors. We never see the vote again until the vendors do the tabulation and give us the results. Then, when we ask to see how their system works and do a real audit, they tell our elections boards, "no no, it's a trade secret."

We've OUTSOURCED our elections. There is no reason to think that anyone elected really got elected if electronic voting is used. It's that simple and that sad.

When will people wake up to this.

There is no need for these machines, paper ballots, hand counted WITH WITNESSES, public announcement at the precinct level, and let the world do the tabulation. GET RID OF CORPORATE VOTING. It's the death of democracy.

This IS THE ISSUE. No verified ballots from machines-- the machine can give you a ballot that says one thing and count the vote another way. That's common knowledge of any high school computer student.

Enough! Help us take back democracy or don't expect to win a majority of anything ever again.

I'm tired that nobody will speak up for the obvious and clear issue of voting rights -- we have a right to vote and know that it was fairly counted. With machines, that right goes away. The government needs to be legitimate but it is not anc cannot under electronic voting.

Why is this hard? There are not more than one or two thousand crooks in this country that oppose voting rights, verified by real ballots owned by the public not Diebold.

Don't ask anymore without addressing this issue.

I've been touting you to friends and colleagues since you got the job. It's now time to stand up for democracy.

autorank
Yellow Dog Democrat
RankLand, USA

Note: They'll toss it in the bin, sad to say.

[newspeak]

174. yes I wrote to Reid last year

Told him I want paper ballots and the machines were a waste of taxpayer money.

[autorank]

183. Welcome to DU!!!

If he ever lets loose it will be great. It's about time don't you think?

[Locke08]

169. Proof?

I don't understand, where is your case? In order to prove there was voting fraud you must first prove that there was voting fraud. I realize that it is difficult to understand how a majority of U.S. citizens hold a viewpoint that is opposite of yours. I would love to believe that most Americans didn't really believe that Bill Clinton was the right choose for president, unfortunately the numbers prove otherwise. Although it was closer, the numbers prove that in 2004 a majority of people thought that George Bush was a better candidate for President than John Kerry. And until you can prove that there was actual voter fraud on a truly massive and realistically impossible scale, then you will have to accept that Bush is president. I am a member of the so-called religious right, although i'm not a huge fan of President Bush. I was raised in a conservative environment and i go to a notoriously conservative college (a rare find). I began looking at this forum in order to study the power base of the other side, and i must say i'm not incredibly impressed. Most of what i see is discussions like this, either re-fighting the last election or simply bashing our President. It is actually rather encouraging, in the summer of 1940 the French did a great job of fighting the previous war, unfortunately for them that happened 26 years before. You must come up with a new strategy and most importantly new ideas in order to become a viable opponent again.

[autorank]

172. Wrong right out of the gate. Welcome to DU!!!

"I don't understand, where is your case? In order to prove there was voting fraud you must first prove that there was voting fraud."

No,in order to prove that there was vote fraud, you must first have an investigation. Prior to that you have to make your case for suspicion. The case for suspicion is fully made. Let's have an investigation.

We're fighting the current war. A majority of the votes will be case on cachines and a great marjority counted on machines provided by just three very right wing vendors. You think that's not relevant, fine. I'm tired of being run over by a bunch of bullies!

[ncrainbowgrrl]

176. Hi Locke08! Welcome to Democratic Underground!

:hi:

[marions ghost]

199. please read my post #198

--since you seem to have doubts that fraud of various kinds is widespread in American voting. The problem is, we don't have any strong mechanisms for dealing with it. And that fact is made much worse by the paperless touchscreen voting machines under control of Republican companies, which after being promoted by HAVA--accounted for 30% of the results in 2004. Have you really looked at what happened in Ohio alone--go to the Conyers website for that.

It's not my purpose to debate you here. You illustrate perfectly the
problem we have in this country of so many people (Dem and Rep) who refuse to believe in the possibility of widespread fraud. The fact is that many pointers indicate that the current president may not have been the winner--several good books are out there now on this, and of course the vast archives of the DU Election Forum.

At least the selection of Bushco gives us all an opportunity to really LOOK at the election system, rather than just "trusting" it. All indicators are that it does not deserve such blind trust. I have worked with elections at the local level. This is a non-partisan problem which even conservative election workers are willing to acknowledge.

[Danger Duck]

170. Wow. Pretty dumb.

We lost in 2004. WE did win in 2000. But you can't look at every year as 2000. Thinking that we either win or get cheated is juvenile. Your logic, well, your argument is asserted with absolute statements that are pure conjecture and opinion. Like:

"They couldn't’t and didn’t win the “war of attrition.” We had too much money and a strong organization (remember!).

They couldn’t and didn’t win the “undecidededs.” We know that for a fact.

And the 3-4 million evangelicals they brought out couldn’t be the “kill shot” when the vote total went from 112 million to 123 million"

They won because there base was less fractured, we had a lousy candidate run a lousy campaign, and the gay ballot initiatives really brought out the vote.

Look, no one likes Bush. But to blame everyone but ourselves for losing will serve up another defeat. kerry was unelectable. if anything, his nomination seemed like the most likely case of voter fraud. His campaign was a disaster. The convention was a joke.

But why rehash it? I prefer to focus on democratic candidates with platforms and ideas. The blame bush crowd has always annoyed me. People don't vote out of hate or contempt. And simply being the "not bush" won't get anybody elected.

[autorank]

171. ..."and dumber";)

"...why rehash it?" So it doesn't happen again!

30% of the votes in 2004 go into machines owned by right wing corporations (some publicly announcing they'll do anything to get a Bush win). 60% + of the votes in 2004 get "tabulated" by one of these three voting machine companies. The results make no sense. Therefore, combining this with all the other evidence, there is a substantive question--was the game "rigged?" If you agree on 2000, that's the predicate. If you really look hard at all the garbage in 2004 and consider the above two facts, then the "rehash" is vital...we will get fooled again!

If the government can't demonstrate that the votes we cast produce the results claimed, that government is not legitimate.

We don't have to prove it. We don't run elections. They do. Go ask your board of elections (if electronic) to prove that the votes cast were the votes recorded by the machines. They can't. Because the vendors hold that information as a "trade secret".

Democracy has been outsourced to Diebold, ESS, and Sequoia to name the three largest. Our government cannot, in most cases, prove that it was elected. It can't do a recount because there are no ballots to recount.

Sorry, fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice and watch me do nothing about it, shame on moi.

:)I may be dumb, but your dumber:) (this is humor, not a flame)

[Danger Duck]

173. Ok....

your argument about diebold has a lot more water then the first post. But it really isn't enough. I think we lost this election because we simply didn't get enough votes. WE lost in 2000 because Gore iniated a recount scenario that didn't cover the whole state, and teh Supreme Court stopped the whole thing. Oh well. I respect your opinion.

[autorank]

181. I respect your opinion too...

Especially regarding the recount strategy. I remember Alan Dershowitz on one of those screaming head shows at the start of the litigation. He said this is a state-wide issue, not limited to just a few counties, and he said it's a racial issue too. If they'd insisted on state wide recounting (what about Gainesville, my God!) and really hammered it, it would have made more sense to the public and they might have nailed them on a crime: the 50,000 eligible voters kicked off the rolls by the obscenely contrived and illegal "felon purge." If 1/2 of those folks voted, there would have been no recount needed.

We need to win in a landslide and dare them to mess around with that.

[Usrename]

185. Probably should let this slide but...

Gore's position in FL was ALWAYS "count every vote" and determine the "will of the people". Can't believe you don't remember him saying that at least a million times during the recount. Like a freaking broken record.

When Bush challenged the FL law that only permitted recounts in four counties, Gore supported the suit (well, more accurately, the remedy) and the recount was ordered for the whole state.

Then, Bush v. Gore ran to the SCOTUS to whine that they changed the rules. Bush won in the state court, then complained about the win in Federal Court.

TRUTH

[Danger Duck]

189. Gore supported

a recount, but there were different standards used in each county. Also, inititally, he advocated specific counties recounting their votes. HTe problem was, since he advocated and fought for a county by county recount with varying standards, it was a clear violation of equal protection. The SCOTUS got fishy when they voted 5 to 4 to allow no recounts, after the 7-2 vote that said the county to county vote was a violation of equal protection, due to the lack of uniformity.

[Usrename]

193. The WHOLE thing was fishy. I'm right with you there.

The 5-4 and 7-2 thing just makes it impossible to parse.

I just have to explain the FL part a little better. Gore, as far as I know, never contested anything in FL. Under FL law he would have had a right to do so by claiming fraud. He didn't ever do that.

Instead, what happened was a mandatory recount is required by statute in close elections. I think it is something like a half a percent, or may be a quarter percent. It was close enough to trigger the mandatory redo. (Orange County, Orlando area, never even did the mandatory recount. They just recertified the original count rather than run the punchcards through the machines again as required by law.)

If the automatically triggered recounts vary by a certain amount from the original counts, any contestant can request a hand count. This happened in only four counties. Gore requested the hand counts. (We did ours here in Volusia county and I think it changed by like nine votes or something. People had written the name on the balot instead of coloring the dot for the optical scan. LOL)

Now here's the deal. We have counties (rural) that only do hand counts on paper ballots. We have punch cards. We have optical scan. And newly arrived in 2004 we now have vapor votes.

In every case the local election board has always had to deal with it. State law says that a vote must be counted if the intent of the voter is clear. Simple and uniform for the whole state.

In any event, the real problem with SCOTUS was that the record showed that the most accurate method for counting votes is a hand count. Many experts testified in the lower courts and they all agreed on this. Not a single line of testimony disputed this. It may even be well establised law as far as I know. And yet..

SCOTUS even stopped the original four counties from doing the hand count. Odd. Very odd. Something about it would violate equal protection for the other counties that didn't get a hand count. And yet we (here in Volusia, one of the original four) did exactly that and had it certified before the count was halted. Go figure...

[Danger Duck]

194. Gore wsa screwed

The 7-2 vote was one thing. However, the 5-4 that stopped all recounts, the precedent was about as fishy as a crabcake. Or crabby.

[autorank]

195. You should let is slide. Give me a break. I remember Gore's satements

but the legal strategy was not as broad based as it should be. While his counsel was able, it needed to be brilliant and innovative. The strategy needed to include civil rights and voting rights acts, it needed to push the race crime committed, it needed a Jerry Spence or Alan Dershowitz. Can you see Spence holding court before an auditorium full of reporters, on the talk shows, speaking as he does.

I respect Gore for fighting. This is just wishful Monday morning quarterbacking. Examine and learn from the past!

[Usrename]

197. Butterfly ballots have been illegal in FL since the VRA.

Yeah, I was sceaming fraud and would have rushed into court to prove it. While it was shown (and adjudicated) that a bunch of felonies were committed, I don't remember any prosecutions. You know, they were just doing what the other side always does.

Anyhow, this far into his second term Gore would have been impeached by now for taking the do not remove tags off his pillows.

[ChiciB1]

175. It's WAS Fraud... No Need For A Challenge!

I've never recognized this IDIOT and his corrupt band of thieves!!!

[Uncle Joe]

178. I believe the exit polls did not jive with the results in Florida in 2000

as well. The corpwhorate owned MSM faulted the exits polls as being misleading or erroneous as opposed to them reflecting the fraud that was perpetuated on the American People. Up until that time exit polls had been respected as to being an accurate reflection of the results. The corpwhorate owned MSM is complicit in enabling Bush and the neocons to power and I doubt they will go quietly in the night.

[Usrename]

186. Voter News Service existed in 2000 and did exit polling.

I remember just before they "uncalled" FL for Gore, someone did a cutaway piece to the VNS guy watching the tallies come in for FL.

This is kind of ineresting so bear with me a minute. He said he was concerned because about 20,000 votes were going to be missing for Gore in Palm Beach County. He had a little screen with what looked like a satelite picture of FL and he circled the Palm Beach area with a teleprompter. Then he said there was also a serious problem in Duval County (up near Jacksonville) where more thousands of Gore votes were going to be missing.

Yup, he was dead nuts right on the money. In one precinct in Duval County, one of every five voters voted for two people for President. And the spoiled ballots in Palm Beach were legendary. (The precinct in Duval was African American.)

[marions ghost]

198. You also need to factor in the huge resistance

on the part of the public to recognise the extent of "systematic bias" and fraud within the election system. This writer from Florida
makes some excellent points about that:

---------------------

The Miami Herald Feb 03, 2005
ELECTIONS
Ukraine vote yields important lessons for U.S. democracy
BY LANCE DEHAVEN-SMITH

(excerpt)
"...unlike this year's presidential election in Ukraine, the 2004 presidential election in the United States was left intact despite legal challenges and protests. In large part this was because U.S. election laws and political culture fail to take into account the potential for systematic bias in election administration. U.S. laws and public opinion focus, instead, on the possibility that unscrupulous candidates might arrange for votes to be cast illegally by individuals using false identifications, forged absentee ballots, or other ruses.

Election shenanigans were common in the 19th Century and in much of the 20th, but in recent years they have been eclipsed by scattered mischief that is carried out or abetted by public officials responsible for election administration. One factor that has contributed to this shift from the conspiratorial tampering of the past to the massive fraud that is so prevalent today is the poorly conceived effort to remake government in the image of the private sector. In recent years, civil-service protections for government employees have been greatly weakened, and many governmental functions have been contracted out to private corporations.

These changes in American public administration have created a new spoils system that makes massive fraud likely in today's elections because it effectively ties public employment and government contracts to election outcomes. In Florida and Ohio, for example, many corporations, public officials and government workers had a vested interest in the reelection of President Bush. No conspiracy was needed to orchestrate their activities. Multiple biases with cumulative effects could be (and were) introduced into the election system through the independent efforts of numerous individuals acting on their own initiative in the pursuit of the same objective. Until U.S. election laws are reformed to guard against massive fraud, our elections will remain vulnerable to systemic abuses.

To be sure, bias in election administration could probably be prosecuted today under existing laws. Certainly, officials in Florida and Ohio appear to have violated their official oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution and the constitutions of their states. They may have also broken federal civil-rights laws by intentionally weakening the voting power of African Americans. However, these acts of massive fraud have gone unpunished -- and, indeed, uninvestigated -- because most Americans have yet to recognize the new form of election tampering that is undermining our democracy."

Lance deHaven-Smith is professor of public administration and policy at Florida State University.

[bleever]

200. Kick; still waiting for proof that * really won.

How long will we have to wait?

[Patsy Stone]

201. Hopefully, not that long for proof he didn't.

:hi:

ed: clarity.

[bleever]

202. So tired, tired of waiting...

:hi:

[freedomfries]

203. kick & don't wait to act

please do something today to stop HR 3910, the REAL ID voter repression bill and pass HR 550, the most comprehensive anti-cyber-fraud bill around.
Take a few minutes of your time to write, fax, or phone or mail your own version of this message to your Representative and the members of the Committee on House Administration.

**********************************************************************
I am writing in connection with two pieces of legislation referred to the Committe on House Administration, H.R. 3910 and H.R. 550. H.R. 3910 called “Verifying the Outcomes of Tomorrow’s Elections” is a disingenuous initiative aimed at controlling and curtailing voter participation in future federal elections by mandating a digital photo identification approved by Homeland Security, or a copy thereof for absentee ballots, as a condition for participation in democratic elections. This excessively burdensome requirement discriminates against elderly, disabled and poor citizen and will keep millions of voters from exercising their democratic right to vote. Section 5 of H.R. 3910 on paper record requirement for e-voting systems does not require that a paper ballot be kept as the permanent and auditable record of the vote in case of irregularities. H.R. 3910 does nothing to verify our elections, but would do a whole lot to make future elections unfair and discriminatory. H.R. 3910 cannot be amended, but must be rejected as a whole.
Please work for bi-partisan adoption of H.R. 550, the “Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2005,” which would amend HAVA 2002 to add a voter-verified paper record for all voting systems, mandatory audits in random precincts, accessibility mechanisms for all voters, prohibition of undisclosed software and wireless communication devices, accreditation of e-system verification and prohibition of vendor conflicts of interest. All these measures are necessary to make e-voting and counting transparent, secure and verifiable.
*********************************************************************
The House Administration Committee does not provide an email address for comments. However anyone can call and register their opinion - or write (faxes are better than snail mail). You can also call and fax the Majority and Minority Committee offices.

House Administration Committee Majority Office
1309 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

House Administration Committee Minority Office
1216 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Members of the Committee

Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH) Chairman
2438 Rayburn House Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20515
P: 202.225.6265
F: 202.225.3394


Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-MI)
1714 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-2203
voice: [phone]
fax: [phone]

Rep. John Mica (R-FL)
2313 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Rep. Candace Miller (R-MI)
228 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-2210
DC Phone: [phone]
DC Fax: [phone]

Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA)
2410 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
202-225-2511
202-225-5444 (fax)

Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-NY)
332 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-3226
202-225-5265
202-225-5910

Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald (D-CA)Ranking Member
2445 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-0537
202-225-7924
202-225-7926

Rep. Robert Brady (D-PA), a co-sponsor of HR 550!
206 Cannon House Office Building
Washington DC 20515
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)
102 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

[autorank]

204. OMf'ingG! You do make a point, don't you. I bleev!