Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Coshocton Co. Results: Kerry to Gain 40,000+ in Ohio Hand Recount

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
 
dzika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-04 10:17 PM
Original message
Coshocton Co. Results: Kerry to Gain 40,000+ in Ohio Hand Recount
Edited on Sat Dec-18-04 10:19 PM by dzika
I searched and couldn't find this posted anywhere yet.

This looks like a great article if you have a gift for math and stats...



FROM: The Nashua Advocate

Saturday, December 18, 2004
Case Study in Finding New Votes: Coshocton County Results Again Suggest Kerry Would Gain 40,000+ Votes in Statewide Hand Recount
By ADVOCATE STAFF

-snip-
In attempting to analyze how Democratic presidential candidate John
F. Kerry and Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush would
fare in a statewide manual recount in Ohio, what more can one do
than look at one of the only counties in the state, if not the only
county, to do a countywide manual recount? It's a start, at least.

-snip-
So, Kerry's "gain rate" in such a hypothetical, "state-averaged"
county (assuming Coshocton County as a valid control) would
be .0290, and Bush's .0213. Applying these rates to the total votes
cast in Ohio -- in fact, applying these rates less advantageously to
Kerry than should be the case, because the total votes cast and
counted on election day itself should really be used to generate a
gain rate, rather than the (much higher) certified totals -- would
give Kerry 163,133 new votes in a statewide manual recount, and Bush
119,818 votes, a windfall of 43,315 net votes for Kerry.

Incredibly, this estimate, devised using Coshocton County as a
starting point, is almost identical to the estimate acquired by The
Advocate -- 42,320 -- when these same types of calculations were
made using the Associated Press's 74%-of-ballots (mixed hand- and
machine-) recount numbers. Indeed, the two estimates differ by less
than 1,000 votes.


http://nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/2004/12/news-electio...

EDIT: Subject
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
politicasista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-04 10:19 PM
Response to Original message
1. Is this in Ohio?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ohio_liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-04 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Yes n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sannum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-04 10:20 PM
Response to Original message
2. How many would we need to win Ohio?--is this Ohio?
Edited on Sat Dec-18-04 10:20 PM by Sannum
I should know, but I don't want to go back and search.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
New Earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-04 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. 119,000 - somewhere in there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemis12 Donating Member (594 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-04 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. 119,000 n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berniew1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-04 10:22 PM
Response to Original message
4. Anyone know a source for the Coshhocton recount results??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dzika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-04 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. The article has this source posted...
Volunteers complete local recount

By Jim Konkoly
Staff Writer

-snip-
COSHOCTON -- Coshocton County's voting system of paper ballots
counted by optical scanning machines works remarkably well.

Mary Fry, elections director, made that assessment based on this
week's recount of the 17,329 ballots cast countywide in the
presidential election.

Twenty volunteers, working in 10 teams of one Democrat and one
Republican, hand counted every ballot.

The recount added 35 votes for Democratic presidential candidate
John Kerry, giving him a total of 7,413, and deducted nine votes
from President George W. Bush, setting his official total at 9,830.



http://www.coshoctontribune.com/news/stories/20041218/l...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enough Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-04 10:25 PM
Response to Original message
7. Nashua Advocate seems to be a must-read site for election news
Just started looking at their reports a few days ago. Now I check in regularly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GetTheRightVote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-04 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Kerry would only need half = 60,000 to win not 119,000
Edited on Sat Dec-18-04 10:27 PM by GetTheRightVote

due to net gain for Kerry and net lose for *
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemis12 Donating Member (594 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-04 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #10
17. Nonsense
Hand recounts aren't switching votes, they're finding ones the machines cannot read.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ohio_liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-04 10:26 PM
Response to Original message
9. The math in the original article makes my head spin
Read this article...does it sound like the same results??

http://www.coshoctontribune.com/news/stories/20041218/l...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EMunster Donating Member (477 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-04 10:28 PM
Response to Original message
11. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Melissa G Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-04 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Good post! kick!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaulVB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-04 10:29 PM
Response to Original message
12. This is a "New Hampshire" paper right?
Edited on Sat Dec-18-04 10:31 PM by RaulVB
Their staff is giving Kerry the tip!!!

119.000 - 43.000 = 76.000

And this figure DOES NOT INCLUDE THE 92.000 UNDERVOTE BALLOTS NOT COUNTED YET!!!

Didn't Kerry asked for 55.000 votes to add to his totals?

Well John, how do you like this?

76.000 VOTES WOULD BE THE DIFFERENCE!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-04 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Are they going to look at those under-votes during this recount?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaulVB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-04 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #14
21. Not at that point.
Those under-votes would be examined later on. That's my understanding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ohio_liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-04 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. I believe
it's an online-only publication.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
musette_sf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-04 10:34 PM
Response to Original message
16. Say What?!?!?
Isn't that within the margin in which I will dance naked in the streets??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-04 10:34 PM
Response to Original message
18. Thanks, dzika for posting this.
Now if we can get the mainstream media to run with it...

Does anyone know if the Kerry-Edwards people have this information also? Or their attorneys?

If this model is correct, and the math favors the Democratic ticket in Ohio, what a thrill for Senators Kerry and Edwards to hold a press conference in Columbus tomorrow declaring victory in the Buckeye State.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaulVB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-04 10:39 PM
Response to Original message
19. DZIKA:
Did you send this to Arnebeck and the Kerry campaign staff?

Thanks for finding this!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dzika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-04 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. I haven't posted this anywhere but here.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemis12 Donating Member (594 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-04 10:42 PM
Response to Original message
20. Self-deleted
Edited on Sat Dec-18-04 10:51 PM by bemis12
After reading the blog more closely.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dzika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-04 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. I'm confused by the math...
Edited on Sat Dec-18-04 10:52 PM by dzika
So it's hard for me to tell if it is correct or not.

The article does say:

"And why does the Coshocton Tribune story covering the county's full
manual recount refer to "the 35 ballots for Kerry not counted on
election night"?
Weren't there, in fact, 535 Kerry votes not counted
on election night, per the coverage by CNN and the Tribune itself
(i.e., pursuant to a simple comparison of the two)?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemis12 Donating Member (594 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-04 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. it appears from the article
that Ohio certified the wrong vote totals, according to the county.

Which would completely invalidate this 40,000 vote nonsense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashuaadvocate Donating Member (514 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-04 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. Not so, Bemis.
Edited on Sat Dec-18-04 11:15 PM by nashuaadvocate
The Green Party is *not* saying that CNN posted the wrong "100% precincts reporting" number on November 2nd, 2004, which is the number used by The Advocate for its analysis. And it would require such a mistake for the analysis -- which is admittedly a hypothetical, but not an unreasonable one -- to be void. No matter which results Secretary Blackwell certified, you can still compare the CNN numbers to the Coshocton Tribune numbers and see a MAJOR disparity. So--

There *were* 1,000+ ballots "found" by Coshocton post-election. That seems to be true, regardless of whether Secretary Blackwell certified those "new" ballots or failed to certify them. We know that 271 of those 1,088 new ballots were provisionals; we know another 44 were the result of the most *recent* countywide hand recount; what we *don't* know is where the other 771 ballots came from, and we *don't* know why those ballots, plus the 44 most recent ballots (815 or so "new" ballots in all) broke noticeably for KERRY after the county went decisively for BUSH. What we *do* know is that it was a heavily-Republican county, so those results are even more stunning, and could reasonably be expected to be even more exaggerated, in a heavily-Democratic county.

Which results Blackwell certified is immaterial, it seems.

Don't forget: Coshocton is just about the only county in Ohio, maybe the only county, to give us a glimpse into what a countywide manual recount can uncover, and how Kerry fares when "lost" votes -- be they provisional, absentee, under-, over-, or simply "missed" votes -- are finally counted.

The News Editor
The Nashua Advocate
http://www.nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaulVB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-04 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. Thanks for posting on this forum
Have you received any inquiry from the people related to the OHIO recount effort?

Sorry, I had to ask!

Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dzika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-19-04 01:24 AM
Response to Reply #27
30. It's pretty cool to have the News Editor...
Edited on Sun Dec-19-04 01:25 AM by dzika
...from The Nashua Advocate posting here and answering our question.

Thanks for posting!

I sent your article along with some questions to Obermann.


Welcome to DU!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaulVB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-19-04 01:48 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. Thanks for sending it to Olbermann
I was going to do that too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Botany Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-04 11:08 PM
Response to Original message
25. King of the World
Tip of the Iceberg. Just give us a fair count and and the S.S. Bush/Cheney is going
down.

I live in Ohio. Only way bush won was by cheating. We have lost 260,000 jobs from 2001.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fshrink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-04 11:10 PM
Response to Original message
26. This is straightforward simple statistics, with the only
caveat, mentioned in the article, that the county is assumed representative of the state, which can be contested easily. Size of the "sample" (i.e. the county) is a variable: the more it increases, the more accurate (with the whole population minus 1 being the largest sample and, of course, 100% accuracy). Quality of the sample is another, since it is not drawn at random, with replacement, from the population. And here, fraud becomes another variable: what if the county under scrutiny has not been tampered with but others have as is most probably the case? Then, the extrapolation from the county to the state loses its power. The article mentions that too. On the whole, the problem has only 2 solutions: 1- prove fraud, with only one documented instance being sufficient and 2- State-wide recount, with the reasonable assumption that the fraud was calculated to be just under what would result from a state-wide recount, betting on the low likelihood of the latter ever happening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dzika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-19-04 01:21 AM
Response to Reply #26
29. RaulVB has created a related thread...
and asks a very good question:


Coshocton

Updated: 3:38 p.m. ET

Bush (Incumbent):

9,277 57% 100% of precincts reporting

Kerry :

6,878 42%

* Source CNN.

"The Coshocton Tribune" says today:

Kerry : 7.413 votes

Bush : 9.830 votes

Can you see???


THERE ARE OVER 1.000 VOTES DISCREPANCE BETWEEN THE ELECTION NIGHT RESULTS AND THE "TRIBUNE" JUST TALKS ABOUT 35 NEW VOTES FOR KERRY.

Is nonsense. Nothing like that can or should happen 45 days after the election.


Here is the new thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FtWayneBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-19-04 01:51 AM
Response to Original message
32. Sandusky county recount report
Bruce Hall
Fort Wayne, IN
December 18, 2004

I was one of the witnesses of the recount in Sandusky County for the GLib party candidates on December 15. The Director of the Board of Elections, Barbara Tuckerman (D), told us at the outset that we were not to interfere with the count or stop it in any way. If we had questions that were not answered to our satisfaction we were to make note of them and relay them to our people later. They had prepared a test deck of ballots with a few each of minor party candidates, several each of the major candidates. What I didnt understand was the proportionally much larger stack of under- and over-voted ballots. When I asked why the stack was so large, it was explained to me but I still didnt get it, and I asked for clarification. I still didnt understand, but didnt want to look like an idiot or like I was trying to put a halt to things, so I made a note of it and hushed up. As near as I could tell, it looked like they were including one under-vote and one over-vote per precinct, or something like that. I didnt write down the number so I cant say exactly how many, but it was somewhere in the neighborhood of a hundred and quite disproportionate to number of legitimate test ballots in the deck. After hand counting these ballots and machine counting them, they reconciled the numbers and declared that the machines tested OK and we could proceed with the actual 3% machine vs. hand count test.
Earlier in the morning, I had observed that lists were being given to certain people to choose the precinct they wanted counted. This did not appear right to me, as it was my impression that the selection was to be by a scientifically valid random sampling plan. The scheme they were using certainly wasnt random. After talking this over with the other two GLib observers present, I recommended to them that we ask for a precinct as well. I believe it was Karen Wagner who made the selection, City of Clyde C. The other precincts that were chosen were Ballville TWP A CV, and Rice TWP. I paid close attention to Clyde C. The hand count matched the machine count after it was discovered that a ballot with a name written in on the write-in line was actually an under-vote by the machine count because the voter had neglected to fill in the bubble in the margin beside the name they had written. We were told we could go to lunch and the full machine recount would begin at one oclock.
We returned about 1:10 and found the machine count underway. I stationed myself at the same machine that had counted our precinct in the morning, and kept a close eye on what was going on. The machine would stop periodically with a message that a ballot had been found with no vote or too many votes on it, and these were set aside to be judged. One scenario was that there were some ballots where a candidates bubble was filled in, as well as the one directly below it on the last line, that for a write-in candidate. The ruling was made that since the line for write-in candidate had been left blank, a white-out sticker would be placed over that bubble so the machine could count it as a vote for the candidate. Due to the rotation of names between precincts county-wide, ballots that were over-voted in this manner would go to various candidates, and if the voter filled in two or more bubbles higher up on the ballot, it was definitely an over-vote. Probably some voters thought they had to vote separately for President and Vice-President, and were filling in the two ovals in the margin closest to their selections. But none of the VP candidates had separate bubbles so there were some spoiled ballots on that score. If a voter had clearly made an effort to erase a bubble and filled in a different one but the machine counted it as an over-vote, it received a white-out sticker on the erased bubble so as to be properly machine counted. A couple of ballots that were machine read as under-votes had all the ovals on the ballot checked instead of filled in, so when this was shown to the judges the decision was made to fill in the bubble where the checkmark was. This all seemed quite fair to me and I was impressed at how well the Democrats and Republicans got along, joking about how much it hurt to repair those types of ballots for the other side, all in good fun. It was surprising to find ballots with most or all of the Presidential candidates ovals filled in, or with none filled in at all. Puzzling, but relatively rare, ballots like these that registered no vote for President.
I asked for a copy of the official, certified results. I was told I would have to wait until they were done counting them. I said, no, I wanted the results that they had already sent in to the Secretary of State previously, those results had to be on record somewhere in the building. I was told OK, I could have a copy of that. I said, thank you. Can I have them now, please? I was told everyone was busy, I would have to wait until they were done counting. I said I really needed to have them before the recount was finished, that it was important to me that I have them now. I was polite but firm, and said there were plenty of people just standing around, and I am sure someone could make a copy of the results that had been sent to the SOS for me. So after about the fifth request it was delivered to me, and I thanked them graciously. The certified result for Clyde C was Bush 226. Kerry 212. The hand and machine recount was Bush 226, Kerry 214. I saw how this had happened by means of two of the over-voted ballots being corrected as previously mentioned, and I began to gain a little more confidence that perhaps the vote count was on the square in this county, but I couldnt swear to it.
I was asked why the recount was requested by the minor party candidates, and said I didnt know for sure. I said there has been a lot of reports of problems with the election, but I thought that it was in the larger counties and those with touch-screen voting. A man said something to the effect that any county that had those ought to smash them, they were ripe for fraud. I asked if I could quote him on that and he said yes, and I got his name. It was Tom Yonkers.
There are a couple of things about the spoiled ballots that bothers me. One is that in cases where the voter filled in a bubble, then crossed it out and filled in a different one the ballot was deemed an over-vote and no vote for President was recorded. I said it seems that the intent of the voter can be determined, and was told, no, you cant count those. I didnt argue the matter, but felt more strongly that this determination was improper when I later found out that the precincts were furnished with pencils that had no erasers. Also, it is my understanding that Nader was not allowed to be counted on the ballot, even though his name appears on it. In some cases Naders bubble was filled in as well as that of another candidate. If a Nader vote did not count, shouldnt the voters other choice (Kerry or whoever) be counted?
There was also some talk of people being purged from the voting rolls if they hadnt voted recently. If they showed up to vote and their name wasnt on the list but they insisted they had voted before and were registered, they were given a provisional ballot. If their name had been purged, however, I dont think their vote was counted. Is that right? Also, some provisional ballots were not counted because of not having a signature on the outside envelope. Was there a rule change on that? There were 713 provisional ballots issued, and 617 were ruled valid to count at some previous time. We were told the provisional ballots judged valid were included among those we were recounting.
Interestingly, the two counting machines were ES&S, and even more interesting, there was a memo lying in plain sight on one of the tables with an ES&S letterhead. The memo gave a phone number to call if there were any problems on Novemeber 2, and requested that the election results be called in as soon as possible. Why would they need to know what the results were right away? The machines stored their information on a computer floppy disk drive built into the machine, but printed out the totals on an Okidata dot matrix printer on a table right by each machine. The hand counted precincts had the totals printed at the machine during the 3% test. During the full recount, the printers kept a running total of how many ballots they had counted and each time the counting was stopped when an uncountable ballot was encountered, but they did not print out any totals for the candidates as the recount progressed. I noted that to the person running the machine, and she said yeah, if it did that everyone would crowd around whenever it printed anything. Imagine that! So then I started to think, maybe there is a way this thing can be hacked after all. But I didnt find any proof of that. The machines did not appear to have telephone lines hooked to them. When the recount was finished, each machine printed a total for the candidates that it had counted in that run, and I made notes of those results. The director took the floppies out of the machines and left the room, saying we should get the final results in about a half an hour. I saw the screen on the computer she was using a little later, it had a heading on it that said, Unity Election Reporting Manager. I did a rough calculation, adding the numbers most recently printed together with the ones from the 3 precincts we had counted in the morning, and the numbers were relatively close. After everything was said and done, Bush picked up 26 votes, Kerry picked up 33. The election officials appeared to have done their jobs well, and the added votes were fairly allocated.
Results: Badnarik Bush Kerry Nader Peroutka Write-in over under totals
11/17 53 16,195 12,653 107 48 ? 225 139 29,451
12/15 53 16,221 12,686 107 48 31 173 136 29,455

The average voter turnout was 74.75%. Ballville F reported the highest, 87.58% turnout. It went Bush over Kerry 255-152. The lowest turnout was City of Fremont 4-E, 54.48%, which went Kerry over Bush 109-98. It appears that many of the precincts with above average turnout went Bush and those with below average turnout went Kerry, especially in Fremont. This could indicate tampering or suppression, or just a lower percentage of turnout by Kerry supporters. However, people most often turn out to voice their opinion to change things, not to make them stay the same. I do wonder what is going on.
For the most part, the election officials in Sandusky County were courteous and professional, and I thanked them for hard work on such a difficult day.

Bruce Hall
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaulVB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-19-04 01:56 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. Thanks for posting this (kick often)
Edited on Sun Dec-19-04 01:59 AM by RaulVB
There seems to be a clear pattern.

An extremely high turnout in precincts were Bush "wins" and a very average or extremely low turnout in Kerry's strongholds, which contadicts the reports about the ground situation and the turnout in places like Cuyahoga county and the immense gains Kerry made almost everywhere in OHIO!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
politicasista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-19-04 01:58 AM
Response to Reply #33
34. So what does that mean?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaulVB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-19-04 02:01 AM
Response to Reply #34
35. Many things,
Machine tampering, tabulation results altered, voter suppression or maybe a combination of all I mentioned.
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 21st 2018, 02:10 PM
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