Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Request for the fraud deniers that visit the forum

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
RaulVB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 03:03 PM
Original message
Request for the fraud deniers that visit the forum
I'll take the liberty of reminding everyone that the works of TIA had lead to multiple conclusions regarding documented evidence of fraud on November 2nd.

That's is undisputable.

The exit polls ONLY take place at THE EXIT of a polling place. Don't mix apple and oranges.

Since 1988 exit polling has overstated democratic voters. It is very plausible then, that democratic voters are disinfranchised on regular basis while they try to vote on election day. Sorry you don't like to hear that.

What I want to learn and many others too, is how you break down the Republican vote for Bush in 2004, where "he gains 9 millions of new voters respect to 2000", don't include the fraudulent Florida 2000 results in your response, and tell me how you conclude your study when Bush lost support IN EVERY SINGLE DEMOGRAPHIC GROUP ON NOVEMBER 2ND, except for "rural christians."

Match your response with the number of states Kerry won and the American electoral voting patterns of the last 24 years.

In other words, get serious...put up or shut up!

I can't wait.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
OKthatsIT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 03:31 PM
Response to Original message
1. We dont have time for this
Moderators of DU should 'cut' their posts.

WHY?
- These types distract, deflect US from serious issues
- Progressives, wanting to be fair, end up being used/abused
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Helga Scow Stern Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Except answering dissent makes an argument stronger. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IAMREALITY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #1
19. You Couldn't Be More Wrong
I see you're new so maybe you don't truly understand DU yet. I actually think this is a HELL of a thread. Fact is people wanna come here and debunk us, even while claiming they're on our side! Well I agree with the thread, put up or shut up. If you are going to dismiss Bush won by fraudulent activity, then you better be able to back it up with facts, statistics, and logic of how the shrub could've possibly won fairly, since we have yet to find ways for it to add up. And if they can't do that then their arguments are without merit, cause we at DU could throw hundreds of statistics, facts, and logic at them as to why the shrub DID win via fraud. If they can't compete, equal, or do better then that, then they have NO GROUND to stand on.

Reality has spoken.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaulVB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 01:47 AM
Response to Reply #19
26. Yes, we all are...
"proud members of the reality based community."

Regards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jkd Donating Member (151 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
2. Are all exit polls created equal?
Concerning BYUs exit poll accuracy, Dr. Freeman said this:

True to their word, predictions in this years contests were quite accurate. In the Utah presidential election, for example, they predicted Bush 70.8%, and Kerry 26.5%. The actual was Bush 71.1%, Kerry 26.4%. Consistently accurate exit poll predictions from student volunteers, including in this presidential election, gives us good reason to presume valid data from the worlds most professional exit poll enterprise.

Mitofsky had Kerry at 30.5%. Isnt Dr. Feeman contradicting his own argument?

Obviously, not all exit polls are created equal. One must determime if the Mitofsky polls are proper before assigning how the adjusted polls justified the fraud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karlrschneider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Are we sure the numbers Mitofsky released are the correct ones?
...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jkd Donating Member (151 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. I used TIA's exit polls for Mitofsky.
I don't have access to the CNN data. I assume that is what TIA used.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #2
11. Hi jkd!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jkd Donating Member (151 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #11
24. Thankyou
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndyOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 04:29 PM
Response to Original message
6. Sundays are FREEPERDAYS!
I have to keep resisting clicking on their negative posts, but I'll be dipped if I waste any of my energy thinking about or responding to them when I need to be emailing media, congress, and everyone else I know; editing a new analysis from a friend about the connection between Republican governors and discrepancies between exit polls and reported votes; adding to my list of people to call tomorrow about airing Conyers hearing on CSPAN; and getting my work-work done so I have time to react quickly to whatever happens during this next week.

I have been patient with the negative posts "WHY IS TERESA KERRY SILENT?!?!?" "WHY IS MICHAEL MOORE SILENT?!?!" "WHY IS DONALD DUCK SILENT?!?!?" But I am about ready to

:puke:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jamboi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. So true! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imajika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 04:47 PM
Response to Original message
7. Some simply will not accept reality...
..but I will make a few points here.

"I'll take the liberty of reminding everyone that the works of TIA had lead to multiple conclusions regarding documented evidence of fraud on November 2nd.

That's is undisputable"

Yes, I won't dispute that TIA, and many here, have drawn multiple conclusions. Ofcourse, that is not in doubt.

The problem is, the conclusions are silly and based on research methods so faulty that virtually no one, aside from rabid conspiracy theorists, take them seriously.

One more time I will say this - you can not do with polling and exit poll results what TIA attempts to do. TIA has been banging away with these charts and graphs since the 2002 election cycle and they were mostly useless nonsense from day 1 (which I have been saying for I think years now).

"Since 1988 exit polling has overstated democratic voters. It is very plausible then, that democratic voters are disinfranchised on regular basis while they try to vote on election day. Sorry you don't like to hear that"

I absolutely believe that some incidences of Republican cheating has gone on since 1988 and before, and that most probably an equal amount of Democratic shennanigans have gone on for just as long. There is ALWAYS some irregularities, ballot box stuffing, and stunts pulled by political activists, and by party bosses and officials in an attempt to game the system to further their turnout and suppress that of the opponents. This has been part of American elections, and most balloting everywhere else, for as long as anyone can remember. Everyone in the media, the GOP and the Democratic Party is well aware of this.

The question is one of scale. What almost every pollster, political consultant (Democratic and Republican), political strategist (both Democratic and Republican), politician and journalist is aware of is that these incidences of election tampering are all on a relatively small scale and virtually always initiated at a very local level. The major political parties may be generally aware of what some corrupt precinct captain or parish party boss is up to here or there, but some fantastic electronic voting machine election fraud conspiracy on the scale claimed by BBV and here on DU is simply not realistic. Far too many people would have to be involved, and the risk of permanent ruin to either party that ever was caught engaged in such a thing would be disasterous.

The conspiracies tossed about here and on other weblogs just keep getting more outlandish and ridiculous. Some of the more reasonable reading this should step back sometime and really look at some of the nonsense being posted. People are looking at results in virtually every state, seeing results they didn't expect, and imagining some conspiracy to account for it. It doesn't even matter if there were electronic machines or not, a crazy theory can always be invented to explain each state or local loss. Completely made up absudity, such as Wayne Madsen's "investigation" are discussed as if it were not just plausible, but likely. Something that, thankfully, even Keith Olberman shot down. The outlandish RNC "insider whom feared for his life" story was another that was discussed as if it were a real possibility - one can hope David Shuster's recent blog ripping it apart has opened some eyes to how utterly ridiculous it was.

If it were plausible that Democrats have been cheated on a scale that regularly flipped state, or EVER flipped national elections, Democratic strategists who do this for a living would be all over it. There are thousands of Democrats who make a career of tracking polls, designing election strategies, monitoring turnout and generally fighting to get Democrats elected nationwide - and the reason you don't see them talking about these electionic voting machine conspiracies or "The fraud" that so many here accept as an article of faith, is because it is just total fantasy.

"and tell me how you conclude your study when Bush lost support IN EVERY SINGLE DEMOGRAPHIC GROUP ON NOVEMBER 2ND, except for 'rural christians.'"

Your premise is simply not true. Bush did better in many demographic groups on November 2nd. How are you not aware of this? Two of the biggest demographic improvements for Bush was his dramatic improvement amongst women (security Mom's) and an uptick from about 35% to near 40% among Hispanics. Bush actually also did slightly better among african Americans (from 9% to 12-13% I believe though I could be wrong here). If I am not mistaken Bush might have lost a bit of ground amongst men, a fairly substantial number of youth voters, and he obviously ceded a significant amount of gay/lesbian and Muslim support - but his dramatic improvement amongst women and in other sub categories gave him a big advantage and led to his election on November 2nd.

I think the recounts are great. I think investigating voter irregularies and incidences of cheating is terrific. We should improve our election system. I see that even when newsoutlets do recounts they always find a few extra votes here or there for one candidate or another, and I don't see why we can't fix this. If someone goes in to vote, they should be able to assume their ballot was counted correctly from the outset. The problem I have is not a movement to correct the problems with our mishmash of an election system, what I take issue with is the seemingly mass delusion among an important core of our base of activists that says we can't win elections because we are being cheated by some fantastic GOP conspiracy. It is harmful to the Democratic party for so many of our most energized people to avoid looking at why we actually lost. We are doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over again if we believe that we are doing nothing wrong, and that the only reason we are losing is because we are being robbed.

There is NO, I repeat NO, evidence that the GOP stole the 2004 election. None, zippo, nada, zero, zilch. If there was ANY evidence of this voting conspiracy, John Kerry would indeed by the first one out of the box screaming about it. If there were real evidence that Bush really stole the election, moderates and even many Republicans all over the country would turn on him in a heartbeat.

Here is what is at work here in my opinion. Message forums like this are an echo chamber. People reading and posting the news that they want to hear, talking to folks whom think just like them, mistakenly assuming that the nation at large holds anything even remotely like the political sentiments that exist here and on other activists webboards. Think about it, reading DU, one might have believed ENRON was going to bring down Bush. Yet, ENRON wasn't even remotely close ending his reign in office. Another example, Yellowcake-Niger gate - remember this scandal was going to bring Bush down? Remember how Bush was supposed to be toast when the "Bush knew" stories broke? None of these things even slightly threatened Bush's presidency, but at DU you'd have thought he was as good as done. Every bad media story or editorial about Bush is posted here, and I am afraid too many people assume that these items constitute most of the news - the problem is that it does not. For every bit of bad news in the media about Bush and the Republicans, there is at least one that is positive. For every story about Bush's connections to ENRON, there is at least one more that says he had nothing to do with it (probably more like 3 to 1 in favor of absolving Bush).

I believe that many here simply can not accept that Bush won the election because they are not getting an accurate, well balanced, picture of where public opinon in the United States really stands. In order to avoid accepting the reality of the Republican victories in 2002 and 2004, some people are inventing and/or accepting fantastic conspiracy theories which sometimes have little grains of truth, but are for the most part simply ridiculous. These things get tossed into the echo chamber among many others whom share the unwillingness to accept that we lost, and stubbornly refuse to consider that our message is not resonating with the American public as well as we may wish, and you wind up with a sort of mass seperation from reality. I suspect that for many, so long as recounts are going on, they can cling to an imaginary shred of hope and avoid accepting Kerry's loss.

John Kerry is no fool, dupe or coward. If there were any real proof Bush stole the election, he and his entire team would be on TV 24/7 making sure the world knew. Hell, John Edwards is a trial attorney, proof of election fraud would be red meat for him. The DNC may be considered weak and useless by many here, and in many ways I agree with this assessment, but it still desperately wants to win elections and would be all over any actual evidence of election fraud. The problem is...........no such evidence exists, and a recount of Ohio is not going to change the outcome of the Presidential election - nor will it unearth any grand conspiracy.

Imajika
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jamboi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Dr. Freeman, Phillips, Hout, Zogby are not conspiracy theorists, yet they
all point to unexplained problems with discrepencies. As for Kerry, we can't know ahead of time what the recount will show, so we will walk through the process and find out. If Kerry wins, we'll proceed from there. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reality_bites Donating Member (120 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #8
30. And all are debunked, or at least...
contradicted by other sources with equal or better qualifications.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
New Earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. better qualified?
Edited on Mon Dec-06-04 11:24 AM by Faye
can you explain how that is?? are you saying others better qualified than Freeman, etc.. have debunked his work?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reality_bites Donating Member (120 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. Take the supposedly sacrosanct Berkely study...
A George Mason University scientist completely debunks Berkely here:

http://elections.gmu.edu/Berkeley.html

This study ends with the following paragraph:

"At the end of the report, the Berkeley authors discuss "reviewers," as if the report has undergone the gold standard in academic publications: peer-review. It is impossible that the report underwent rigorous double-blind peer-review in the short time between the election and when the report was posted. What is more likely is that the authors got feedback as they circulated the report. Peer-review will occur when the manuscript is sent to an academic journal. As the report stands now, I would be surprised if it is accepted for publication in a reputable journal that specializes in elections. It lacks theoretical grounding and there are many troublesome methodological issues that reviewers will raise with the study."

Patrick Ruffini makes short work debunking Berkely:

http://www.patrickruffini.com/archives/2004/11/the_last...

A non-fraud explanation for the Berkely result is pointed out by a University of Arizona professor here:

http://www.kieranhealy.org/files/misc/election.pdf

Another author adds another variable to the Berkely study - the Jewish vote - which entirely nullifys the Berkely anomoly. See Here:

http://newmarksdoor.typepad.com/mainblog/2004/11/more_o...

This site also makes the case that there are non-fraud related reasons for the results in the Berkely study:

http://rightonthemark.blogspot.com/2004/11/did-democrat...

If the mainstream media were to cover this story, the headline would read:

SCHOLARLY BERKELY STUDY PROVES ELECTION FRAUD. SEVERAL OTHER SCHOLARLY STUDIES SAY OTHERWISE

This is a lot of the reason there is no mainstream coverage of this issue. Media outlets have looked at the evidence, and the case is not made, or is contradicted somewhere else.

When one repudible study is debunked by another, the standard operating procedure is for the authors of the poriginal study to defend their work. Why hasn't the Berkely authors defended their work ?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bitchkitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #32
44. Your sources:
Edited on Mon Dec-06-04 03:16 PM by bitchkitty
A bio of the author of your second link:

Patrick Ruffini is never far from the place where politics meets technology. Until recently, Ruffini was webmaster for the Bush-Cheney 04 presidential campaign, proudly serving as part of the team that executed the most sophisticated online strategy in political history. At the campaign, Ruffini was responsible for day-to-day website operations, designing creatives to crisply communicate the Presidents message, and developing special features surrounding major events like the Conventions and Presidential debates. Ruffini also designed and served as chief writer for the campaigns official blog, and managed the campaigns outreach to the blog community.

A bit from the site of your third link:

Some on the Left oppose the Administration's proposed air pollution rules. (NY Times, registration required.) It seems that many plants don't upgrade their pollution controls because if they do, they then must meet very stringent standards. So they just keep polluting at heavy rates. The Administration proposes to let such plants upgrade--make at least marginal improvements--without triggering the more stringent requirements. The Left pursues absolutes; conservatives would rather make the world a little better, rather than make it a lot worse through pursuing absolutes. This is the very heart of the conservative/liberal divide.

The name of the last link speaks for itself "did-democrats-cheat-in-2000.html".

Are you lost? Confused?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spiffarino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 01:53 AM
Response to Reply #44
48. The name says it all
Reality bites...apparently not a member of the reality-based community, eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Good post
Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. Nice try...but here's where you are wrong

"There is NO, I repeat NO, evidence that the GOP stole the 2004 election. None, zippo, nada, zero, zilch. If there was ANY evidence of this voting conspiracy, John Kerry would indeed by the first one out of the box screaming about it. If there were real evidence that Bush really stole the election, moderates and even many Republicans all over the country would turn on him in a heartbeat."


Looking back at 2000, one sees that the election was stolen, yet, do you hear the DNC, etal, the republicans, etal, talking about it? No. Well the similar happened in 2004, and the same parties, save us truth seekers, are silent again. Therefore, that part of your argument is destroyed, and the rest becomes very questionable, eh?

The basic premise of the election being stolen is based on two things:

One, the exit polling. Hell, even Fox news at 5pm, Nov. 2, was as good as calling Kerry the winner. The exit polling cannot be so easily dismissed as you attempted.

Two, the centralized nature of the machines used, four companies count 80% of the US vote, making it quite possible that the alteration on such a massive scale could have taken place.

It is hard to accept that our vote can be stolen. It is an awful thing to even think about. But if one DOES think about it, one must conclude that it very well could have happened. Then, when that same someone looks at the compiled evidence, one simply has to conclude it probably did happen on Nov. 2.

Thanks anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemis12 Donating Member (594 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. The 2000 election
was within the margin of error. That is to say, that potential mistakes had the ability to influence the election results. And yes, we all heard A LOT about it. But it wasn't a problem with fraud, just the intense closeness of the race.

When it was going to be decided by a few hundred votes, there was literally no way wither side could lose and not feel it was stolen. As it happened, it ended up being us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. 2000 was close
That's why all the elections people wanted there to be a larger margin in 2004... and they got it! Coincidence or conspiracy?

There was some uproar in 2000, but it wasn't about how computers did the dirty deed, it was the shenanigans of certain election officials that got heat. Hardly anyone even looked at the computers then.

But the fact remains that it was greatly effected by computers. Anyone who has studied it comes to that conclusion. But did you hear the DNC or the pubs decrying that fact? NO.

Even up to Nov. 3, it was like pulling teeth to get anyone in high office to even look at evidence of computers destroying the vote. The gist of what Imajika was saying is wrong. Only now are some higher ups looking hard and long at what the computers can do. Give them a few more weeks and they will be bitching.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imajika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. BeFree
"Looking back at 2000, one sees that the election was stolen, yet, do you hear the DNC, etal, the republicans, etal, talking about it? No. Well the similar happened in 2004, and the same parties, save us truth seekers, are silent again. Therefore, that part of your argument is destroyed, and the rest becomes very questionable, eh?"

No, my argument was not in anyway destroyed, and the rest of my points are simple reality. You may or may not chose to accept where we are, but it is what it is.

A majority of Democrats, and most certainly 100% of the population on DU to include myself, agree that the Supreme Court of the United States had zero business interfering with the state of Florida's election in 2000. Saying that, the Supreme Court made its decision and there wasn't a whole lot that could be done that wouldn't be counterproductive after the fact. Had we as a party to continued contesting that decision, refuse to recognize the electors, walk out of Congress, insist that we wouldn't work with Bush or the Republicans, etc, we simply would have been destroyed as a viable American political party. There is a terrible confusion on DU and on other left leaning web boards that assumes that activists that take part in these forums have terribly much in common with the bulk of the American public. We don't. The American people, for the most part, tend to completely reject the views and vision of the far left and far right. Americans tend to gravitate towards the middle, with a go along get along mindset so long as they can lead fairly productive lives. Americans do not want the US government shut down - witness what happened to Newt Gingrich when he tried to take on Clinton in 95' and essentially brought many services the Federal Government offers to a halt. Gingrich never really recovered from that and it was all down hill from there for him. The media and the majority of the American populace were in no mood to see the Democratic Party continue to contest the 2000 election, and had we done so it would have horribly damaged the party. Democratic Party officials and strategists knew this, Al Gore knew this, the media knew this - activists and fringe players didn't accept it, but that is because you can always bitch, scream and complain when your on the outside looking in because your not really responsible for the reprecussions.

"One, the exit polling. Hell, even Fox news at 5pm, Nov. 2, was as good as calling Kerry the winner. The exit polling cannot be so easily dismissed as you attempted."

Flawed exit polling, and the use by the media and blogs to draw conclusions the way they began to is simply not proof of fraud. Witness the recount in parts of New Hamphire where a relook at the balloting in the areas where polling and the final results showed a huge gap, revealed that the voting machines were indeed accurate and Bush simply did better than expected. Exit polls can be used to back up claims of fraud, IF, in addition to said exit polls you had unmistakable, obvious, widespread real evidence of fraud taking place. Witness the Ukraine, where beatings at polling stations were caught on tape, where video of thousands of government employees going from precinct to precinct in eastern Ukraine to vote numerous times were distributed to the media, etc, etc. No actual evidence of fraud exists here, only theories that it occured.

"Two, the centralized nature of the machines used, four companies count 80% of the US vote, making it quite possible that the alteration on such a massive scale could have taken place."

Only two or three companies are in the business of building commercial airliners, does that mean a conspiracy by these companies to brainwash passengers, via subliminal messages on their personal viewscreens, to lobby governments to bailout these companies by handing them further billions of taxpayer dolars could have taken place? I suppose, but before I'd take such a theory seriously, you'd have to show me some proof to back it up. Saying something could have happened, is a long, long, long way from being able to say that it did.

"It is hard to accept that our vote can be stolen. It is an awful thing to even think about. But if one DOES think about it, one must conclude that it very well could have happened. Then, when that same someone looks at the compiled evidence, one simply has to conclude it probably did happen on Nov. 2."

Not true, I could accept it easily if you showed me actual proof. I've followed this fairly closely actually, and, as something of a hobby, I've actually looked to see if I could find anything at all that constitutes real, reasonably convincing proof, and to date I've seen nothing. And the same pile of nothing is why no Judge will alter the inevitable outcome of Bush being innagurated in January. I'm talking about real proof here, not these halfcocked conspiracy theories that border on the comically insane I've been seeing so many swallow hook, line and sinker here.

You will see, at the end of the day, that every single thing I've posted here on this issue will have been proved to be 100% accurate. There is no proof of election fraud, only evidence of irregularities, annomolies, errors, mistakes, etc, etc. There will never be evidence of massive Republican or Democratic efforts to steal elections through organized fraud, it simply won't happen, and the reason it won't happen is because neither party is that stupid, and further there would be no chance of keeping something like that quiet for long. Discovery of something like this would be revolutionary in its effect, and the political party who perpetrated such a scheme would be destroyed.

Do you really believe that the conspiracy theorists here and on other weblogs are smarter than the very Democratic stategists, polling firms and operatives who have been in this business for decades and know virtually everything there is no know about elections, demographic shifts, voting populations right down to the block, etc? There is a reason virtually none of the pro's take this stuff seriously, and that is because they know it is complete fantasy.

Some of this dreamland stuff about Kerry waiting in the wings, bidding his time, ready to pounce on "the Fraud" once all the i's are dotted and t's crossed is just so silly I often find myself, while pitying the posters naivete, shaking my head in disblieve. Kerry is done, and his occassional talk of counting every outstanding vote is nothing more than a bone thrown to the activists base whom Kerry understands still haven't accepted defeat.

At the end of election night, it was clear there were simply not enough votes for Kerry to claim victory in Ohio. Of the 125,000 or so provisional and absentee ballots counted, Kerry closed the gap by a far less than expected (by some) 17000 or thereabouts which leave a lead of approximately 118,000 votes for Bush. Add every single under/over vote to Kerry, and you still don't have enough numbers to overcome Bush's lead. And believe me, the under/over count is not going to get Kerry more than a few thousand more votes to add to his total at the end of the day, not to mention the fact that a sizable number of said over/under votes will go to Bush as well.

The numbers just aren't there, there is no evidence of fraud, Ohio is not going to flip to Kerry, Bush will be inaugurated in January, and Kerry will be left to decide what new role he wishes to play in the Democratic Party. These current courtcases are nothing more than sideshows that will, over time, be tossed out of court and eventually forgotten about (most Americans assuming it was sour grapes all along).

Imajika
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IAMREALITY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. Imajika,
I AM REALITY. Nice to meet you. I see we haven't met.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
New Earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. lol
i love you :hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Niche Donating Member (687 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #17
23. Look closely at turnouts and votes cast...
Edited on Sun Dec-05-04 10:58 PM by Niche
I really want to know why, lets say in NV, 70% registered dems voted Kerry and 100% reapers voted snuff? Across the board? Look at the numbers. So tired of your lame arguments against fraud! Just sick of it. I haven't heard of any Dems PREVENTING Reps from voting. This doesn't answer anything but you know 1000+ posts means nothing in terms of where you stand here! I read so much BS here!

P.S. the rambling narcissism makes me :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chi Donating Member (921 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #17
40. Hi Imajika
I am curios on this topic, and you seemed to be very informed.

I would like to read about the "Flawed exit polling".

Where can I get the statistical and/or factual article(s) or report(s) you read to come to this conclusion?

Links would be greatly appreciated.

Thanx in Advance

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. Imajika, your refrain is tired, stale and out of touch with reality.
Edited on Sun Dec-05-04 09:15 PM by TruthIsAll
New DUers are sophisticated enough to see your diatribes for what they are. Just because you call my analyses worthless just proves that you do not know what you are talking about. Professional mathematicians agree that the odds of fraud are astronomical. New, mathematically mature DUers have confirmed my results.

They have confirmed the odds: One in 13.5 trillion, that the Bush deviations from the exit polls was either fraud, mistabulation or both.

Your credibility on this forum is non-existent at this point.
Your denial of reality is astounding. You continue to spout the tripe of someone who does not want to face the truth. Or seeks to camouflage it.

When I posted the other day asking for mathematicians to come forward to refute or confirm my analysis, you failed to respond. Perhaps you did not understand the analysis or you did, but could not offer a coherent response. Which is it?

Well, others responded. Quite coherently and elegantly. And they essentially confirmed the analysis.

I suggest that you reevaluate your approach. Either come forward with cogent mathematical analysis or get the hell out of our way.

THE DU TRUTH TRAIN IS GONNA' RUN OVER YOU.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaulVB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 01:47 AM
Response to Reply #14
27. Agreed, TIA (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imajika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #14
29. Out of touch with reality?
Me? LOL. Sure, TIA, sure.

The phrase "garbage in, garbage out" perfectly applies to your "research".

You can make Excel tell you anything you want, but because your methodology, premise and basic theory is fundamentally wrong, nothing Excel calculates for you will ever matter.

It's quite convenient isn't it? You can bang away for 2 years on how "Bush is toast", and how your polling analysis proves it - then when your dead wrong (which I predicted was likely all along), you then say that your research actually proves you were right and that it was "the fraud" that prevented your crack number crunching from being correct.

Bush is toast, Bush is toast, Bush is toast, etc, etc. You said it over and over, and I told you not to count your chickens, and that your analysis was bad. You didn't listen, and your predictions were embarassingly (for you) wrong.

If your proof of fraud were so sound, to the point it were actually millions, billions, or apparently now even trillions to one that fraud took place (I laughed hysterically when I read that one), why don't real statisticians, Democratic Party strategists and operatives or anyone else (beyond cranks like Madsen) believe in this massive voting fraud conspiracy. Come on now, if you really believe with total certainty that you've proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bush won only through voter fraud, and you believe your "research" proves this, why not forward it to Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, Hillary Clinton, maybe even Bill Clinton, or how about Nancy Pelosi, what about the FBI (oh, you probably think they are in on it), how about a local police agency, even Al Sharpton, Senator Reid, etc, etc, etc. If this work of yours were so good, someone, somewhere, who is actually taken seriously in the real world, would back it up. I think you and I both know that your theories will never be taken seriously anywhere outside of Internet message boards - some people will believe anything to avoid accepting reality, and you have gained an audience amongst that group.

"Your credibility on this forum is non-existent at this point."

Amongst people whom believe your statistics really prove that the odds Bush actually won are trillions to one, why yes many of them won't accept any glimpse outside fantasy lala land. For those people, the craziest conspiracy theories (such as yours) seem reasonable because it fits nicely into their deluded world view and allows them to continue avoiding reality.

"You continue to spout the tripe of someone who does not want to face the truth."

So, let me get this straight, myself, and the vast, overwhelming majority of the Democratic Party leadership, operatives, strategists, office holders, etc, etc do not buy into fantastic conspiracy theories which say Bush really won the 2004 election only through massive fraud (and that the odds of this being true are billions or trillions to one) are all denying reality and spouting tripe if we should take issue with your assertions and "proof"?

On the otherhand, you, who has been consistantly wrong in your predictions, put out outlandish polling and exit polling analysis (and I use the word "analysis" generously here) that claims to prove the odds are trillions to one that Bush actually won the election and that infact Kerry was cheated through some mammoth vote fraud conspiracy (though no such proof actually exists anywhere), and you actually think that it is I who don't want to face the truth?

"I suggest that you reevaluate your approach."

Why should I change my approach. I am usually correct, and so far that I've seen you are almost always wrong about nearly everything.

"Either come forward with cogent mathematical analysis or get the hell out of our way."

Hehehehehe. LOL. How many times do I have to tell you this - you can't do with polling and exit poll results what your attempting to do. It is a total exercise in futility. The average of most of the major polls just before the election showed Bush with a 1-2% lead, and he wound up winning by about 2 - 3%. That is not remarkable, nor anything unusual. Zogby had the race just about even, but thought Kerry would win because he thought he detected a surge, Zogby was wrong and has admitted as much (infact, he says he will never make those types of predictions again). Rassmusen's final poll showed Bush up very close to the way the final results came in (roughly 50-48%). The point is, most polls showed a close race, and the race was indeed very close. There is no need to do the kind of mathematical analysis that your doing, because it is so fundamentally flawed that it is totally worthless.

Imajika
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #29
34. "Most polls showed a close race" This is from 2003 - BEFORE them:


You want to believe most polls, be my guest. "Most polls" also said in 2001 that people trust SCOTUS more than ever, right after this second one that "people trust electoral system and are so happy it went fast". Most polls also said people loved the war, 90% loved the fearless leader and other BS.
TIA is offering facts. You rebut it with "most polls"? That's manufactured reality as far as I know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reality_bites Donating Member (120 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #29
36. Don't waste your time. It's not possible for TIA to be wrong
he's a master statistician.

With TIA, "EXIT POLLS ARE NEVER WRONG" except when they are.

When facts contravene his thesis. it's because of omnipotent, omniscient Karl Rove.

Hello !!!! The MSM has not ignored this issue. They have looked at the evidense and found it laughable. TIA analysis is probably one of the reasons this story has not made it to MSM. It's just too wacky.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaulVB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 01:44 AM
Response to Reply #36
47. If W your candidate "won"...
What are you afraid of?

Go on and keep celebrating!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaulVB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 01:43 AM
Response to Reply #29
46. Why don't you go post to your own sites?
You are in the wrong place.

Republicans are not invited!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MarkusQ Donating Member (516 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #7
18. I would be more inclined to agree with you...
...if I weren't a long time Republican in a deeply red state, surrounded by other Republicans who are saying things like "I can't believe he won" and "I didn't vote for him--did you?"

The Neo-cons stole our party before they stole our country (as my brother said on Thanksgiving "I want my party back!"). Most of the Democrats I know are depressed and taking it as a sign that they are losers and out of touch with the country. But they Republicans? They're running fifty-fifty smug or mad. The "security mom's" I know voted against the man that lied to send their sons and daughters off on a mindless war. The moral-values Republicans I know are pretty much against him (as one friend put it "What part of 'thou shalt not kill' doesn't he understand?")

And the fiscal conservatives? Ha!

Yes, there are quite a few "Our side won! Our side won!" yahoos, but I'd be surprised if he's got 56% of the Republicans I personally know, let alone the Democrats.

--MarkusQ




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unpossibles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. I agree
As an independent, I have friends on both sides of the fence, and while I know many Republicans and fellow Indies who voted for Kerry, I do not know a single Dem voted for Bush. One or two Indies, but that is it.

Ironically, as a uniter (or Unificator as SNL put it...), he has divided us so much. I know he pushed me to the left quite a bit and feel he doesn't represent the right very honestly either.

I also found it disturbing that no one who voted for him seemed to care that he lied to their faces (via the camera) about his own "I'm not concerned with ...Bin Laden" thing in the debates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaulVB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 01:48 AM
Response to Reply #18
28. Thanks for your honest comments
Those that deny the fraud are not interested in telling the truth.

Regards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imajika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #18
33. The problem is...
personal anecdotal evidence is almost entirely worthless.

Huge numbers of people also couldn't believe McGovern lost to Nixon, yet he not only lost he lost in a landslide.

"...if I weren't a long time Republican in a deeply red state, surrounded by other Republicans who are saying things like 'I can't believe he won' and 'I didn't vote for him--did you?'"

Are you suggesting that Bush was vulnerable in deeply red states? I think it was pretty clear that Bush was infact not in any danger in said solid red states. Do you believe the great vote fraud conspiracy extends into these deeply red states?

Imajika


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #33
35. I am actually suggesting that your dear W lost in some red states
such as Georgia, Tennesee, Arkansas. Just because I know the shennanigans they did there in 2000, 2002.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imajika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #35
39. robbedvoter
"I am actually suggesting that your dear W lost in some red states"

How nice. Don't like an opposing opinion from someone, suggest they are Bushbots. It doesn't dignify a response, but since I haven't had to bother in quite some time I will. I not only didn't vote for Bush, I haven't voted for a Republican ever. Not once. I vote the straight Democratic party ticket and always have. Even if I found a Republican I might remotely consider voting for, I still wouldn't because of the leadership they would back in the House or Senate or elsewhere.

"such as Georgia, Tennesee, Arkansas. Just because I know the shennanigans they did there in 2000, 2002."

By shennanigans are you referring to another vote fraud conspiracy? If so, where is your proof of this? When the GOP ran ads saying that Max Cleland practically supports Osama Bin Laden is was NOT vote fraud, it was just really nasty politics. If you have real proof of vote fraud in Georgia, Tennesee or Arkansas - please show it to us all. I have no trouble believing the GOP won in any of those states in 2000, 2002 and 2004 as it is pretty clear that the Republicans are increasingly solidifying their power in the South. That is the reason we lost pretty much every southern senate seat possible in 2004 (to include South Carolina, Georgia, Florida & Louisiana).

The problem ain't the voting machines. We have serious message and perception problems - especially in the deep, red South.

Imajika
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaulVB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 01:45 AM
Response to Reply #7
25. Your argument is not credible
And I honestly think you should reevaluate your political stand.

It doesn't look like that you are very interested in living within a democratic system. And that's your personal option, indeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blueatheart Donating Member (92 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #7
37. your on trial for murder....
the prosecutor is big man in town, lot of connections. Your attorney isn't all that good. You find out that the jury is "friends" acquaintances, or partners with said prosecutor who really wants to win this case.

Your telling everyone that you have snowball chance in hell for fair trial when jury is on the prosecuting side. Oh its ok your told, they promise to be fair.

Would you fight or just say oh well, they said they would be fair, I believe them!

Does the story seem far fetched? Naw, our country wouldnt stand for that.

FACT: Bush is tied very closely to Jeb, Diebold, ESS, Blackwell, etc. That alone, in itself is enough (though theres much more) to doubt the results of the election. Its ok though, they never would have been unfair!




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #7
38. this election was stolen, Right in front of our eyes.
practically my entire family (which is huge) live in Red States, and have always voted Republican----None of them voted for Bush, and they do not know anyone who vote for him.

They are shocked he was able to so openly able to steal this election too.

Look how stupid he acted at the debates, he didn't care if he won them---he LOST ALL THREE---but, he KNEW that Poppa already fixed this election for him, so what the fuck?
The Bushitlers---their damn sense of entitlement makes me cringe. Shame for America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imajika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #38
41. Proof please?
The actions of your entire family is useless anecdotal evidence. Sorry, but that is the truth.

"Look how stupid he acted at the debates, he didn't care if he won them---he LOST ALL THREE---"

Agreed, Bush clearly lost the debates in my view. Not only did he lose, he looked like an uneducated fool when compared to Kerry. Additionally, I also thought Bush lost the debates to Gore. Infact, I've thought Bush looked bad in every single debate I've ever seen him in.

Problem is, many or most Americans either just disagree with me or don't care about the debates one way or the other.

You can't say becuase Bush lost the debates in the eyes of yourself, your family and friends, that the majority of Americans will necessarily either agree or care about it enough for their vote to be effected. You simply can not make these assumptions.

"---but, he KNEW that Poppa already fixed this election for him, so what the fuck?"

He did? So Daddy Bush fixed the election? Okay, where is the evidence to support this? How do you know this is true? See the problem - you have not one shred of evidence to support your theory.

You can't say because our guy lost that it absolutely has to be fraud. You can suspect it if your chose, but the absence of any real evidence basically blows up the theory.

Imajika
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. you sound like a shrub supporter.
I'm so grateful the majority of us do not share your beliefs.
If we did, we'de be facing a B*sh Dynasty that could go on for years
and years
and years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bones_7672 Donating Member (558 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 09:54 PM
Response to Original message
16. delete
Edited on Sun Dec-05-04 09:56 PM by bones_7672
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DubyaSux Donating Member (366 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 01:22 PM
Response to Original message
42. Oh geez...
...some of these arguments sound exactly like Shrub:
The absence of evidence does not mean the absence of evidence. So, let's go start us a war.

The only thing truly indisputed (contrary to an earlier post), is there is not one shred of indisputed verifiable evidence to support any type of FRAUD. Even localized fraud. Hell, I'd even take that. But on a national level when the machines aren't even connected to each other? Puleeze...

So, when some of us bring this up, your answer is "it's up to you to show us there was no fraud". This is like Hans Blix proving Iraq didn't have WMD.

How do you prove a negative? You can't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 03:15 PM
Response to Original message
45. You first
You are asking for evidence of how Bush gained 9 million votes when he "lost support IN EVERY SINGLE DEMOGRAPHIC GROUP ON NOVEMBER 2ND, except for "rural christians."

Unfortunately for you, Bush gained in numerous Demographic groups such as Catholic, Hispanics, Jewish Americans, and African Americans. Since your premise is therefore blatantly false, I see no reason to respond to your request.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Apr 20th 2019, 01:23 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

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


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

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

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

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC