A Succinct Summary of the 2004 Presidential Election

[Kevin Spidel]

I just got this note in a donation to PDA in the mail. I had to share it....

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

A Succinct Summary of the 2004 Presidential Election

The Democrats' mistake was in thinking that a disastrous war, national bankruptcy, erosion of liberties, corporate takeover of government, environmental destruction, squandering our economic and moral leadership in the world, and systematic administration lying would be of concern to the electorate.


The Republicans correctly saw that the chief concern of the electorate was to keep gay couples from having an abortion.

[GetTheRightVote]

1. There are some seriously sick Americans in this country

:kick:

Election was stolen by the way.

[SouthernDem2004]

2. Well in my opinion...

It was the inability to form a clear and consistent message. More of a DNC problem then a Kerry problem. Running a ticket solely on anti-Bush slogans just was doomed from the start. They failed to respond to attack ads in a timely manner. Kerry did seem to flip-flop from time to time. People like Michael Moore were allowed to hijack issues when there unpopularity (hmmm, is that a word...) did nothing more then obscure the issue itself. The messenger killed the message. We also lacked an outlet like Fox News. 24/7 Pro-Republican TV is hard to beat.

Also, we failed to establish a "grass roots" movement. We hired people to register voters and we sent people from out of state to register people. Having locals conduct the voter drives would be far more effective.

Our get the vote efforts concentrated on the younger crowd. It came down to going to malls, concerts and campuses to register people. As a result we registered alot of people that had so little concern for the process that they could not spend 10 minutes of their time to go to the courthouse and register themselves. I certainly was not shocked when they did not turn out in mass. We lacked motivated new voters.

Alot can be learned from the Republican political machine. I just hope enough people paid attention.


P.S. I do not think it was stolen. There is zero credible proof of such claims. We lost for numerous reasons and have no one to blame but ourselves. Creating a boggieman to make excuses for our failure serves no purpose.

[KaliTracy]

3. it was stolen -- in various ways, shapes and forms. Just read this

document, Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio ( http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/ohiostatusrept1505.pdf )released by the Democratic House Judiciary Committee and tell me that Nothing fishy happened in Ohio. I'll even give you the table of contents first --







Beyond this report (which Blackwell has YET to answer any of the questions addressed to him) there are several others that also show that statistically *'s sudden gain was just not possible.

Just to get started here are a few sites:
VotersUnite: http://www.votersunite.org/ (note: Over 90% of glitches, etc. favored One candidate)

http://www.freepress.org/columns (current editorials about the election -- look in the archives, too)

http://www.solarbus.org/election/ Election Justice Center

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/2004votefraud.html (some time lines)

And of course, if you read the links provided by bernie1, TruthIsAll, modmom, among others, you will see that there is much information surrounding this issue. Provable in court? Not yet. But there are a lot of people out there working on this, trying to make it a reality so that it doesn't happen again.

on edit: additional website

[BeFree]

4. Nice try, Kali

But if anyone reads and posts here, they know the election was stolen.

In other words, anyone here who hasn't looked at the facts, never will.

You can supply all the links in the world, and talk yourself blue in the face, but some people just trust GWB more than us.

[KaliTracy]

5. actually I tend to think that some wander in -- just to look around. sure

they may already have their minds made up -- but -- maybe there is a small chance that they just don't know the scope. They hear the word "stolen" and think How could that happen in America? not realizing that voter suppression is illegal, and that fliers that tell voters to vote on a different day are illegal. Not to mention all of the other incredible things that happened on that night. Talking to the wind? Not a waste of time, in my opinion -- sometimes the wind might hear my voice and carry it on into the next town.


Edit: clarity

[SouthernDem2004]

6. You still have no facts.

I read all of the threads and visited numerous of the conspiracy sites. I listened to all of the supposed proof that never panned out. I still have seen no credible proof. Now the conspiracy types have resorted to statistical analysis of exit polls and claiming it is proof of fraud. I still check from time to time to see if they have come up with anything and they still have not. Until there is even one shread of credible proof no one is going to listen.

[BeFree]

7. You read all the threads?

Really? Since, oh, say October of 2004?

I guess, in your field, if you read the first chapter, and maybe the back cover of a math book, that makes you a mathematician? LOL

Most folks don't want to know the facts, they are happy believing in GWB.

There exists on DU, numerous and credible facts about election 2004 pointing at a stolen election.

The only proof that says it was not stolen is the secret-code counted results from GWB's friends who just happen to own all the secret-code vote counting equipment. I don't trust GWB or his friends, do you?

[SouthernDem2004]

8. Give me one credible fact. Just one.

[TruthIsAll]

9. You asked for a credible FACT. Well, here it is.

IF THIS PRELIMINARY NEP WEIGHT WAS CORRECT, WHY WAS IT CHANGED?

Edited on Sun Mar-13-05 04:53 AM by TruthIsAll

A total of 122 million voted in 2004.

According to the FINAL exit poll of 13660, 43% voted for Bush
in 2000, or 52.46 million. Only one problem with that: Bush
only got 50.5 million votes in 2000.

The FINAL weighted exit poll was OFF by 2 million votes (4%).

According to the PRELIMINARY exit poll of 13047, 41% voted
for Bush in 2000, or 50.02 million.

The PRELIMINARY exit poll was MORE ACCURATE than the FINAL.
It was only off by .50 million votes. That's exactly 1%,
which happens to be the exit poll margin of error. And may still be correct.

NOW FOLLOW THIS CLOSELY:
THERE MAY INDEED HAVE BEEN FEWER VOTERS WHO SAID THEY VOTED FOR BUSH IN 2000, AND MAYBE .50 MILLION BUSH VOTERS IN 2000 DECIDED TO VOTE FOR KERRY IN 2004. THE 50.02 MILLION THE PRELIM. EXIT POLL SAID VOTED FOR BUSH IN 2000 IS VERY POSSIBLY CORRECT TO WITHIN A FEW THOUSAND VOTES (LIKE WITHIN 0.1%).

SO THE PRELIMINARY EXIT POLL, WHICH KERRY WON BY 51-48, MAY HAVE BEEN EVEN MORE ACCURATE THAN WE THOUGHT.

ON THE OTHER HAND, IT IS ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE THAT 52.46 MILLION COULD HAVE VOTED FOR BUSH, WHEN ONLY 50.5 MILLION DID.
SO THE FINAL, CORRUPTED EXIT POLL IS JUST THAT - A MANIPULATION OF THE CORRECT ORIGINAL EXIT POLL TO CONFIRM A STOLEN ELECTION.

IS THAT LOGIC CREDIBLE ENOUGH FOR YOU?
AND ARE YOU REALLY A DEMOCRAT?
IF SO, YOU SHOULD BE VERY PISSED-OFF BY NOW.

The logical question becomes: If the PRELIMINARY was more
accurate, why was its weighting adjusted from 41% to 43% in
the FINAL?

In the PRELIMINARY:
20.74 million (17%) did not vote in 2000.
Bush won 39% or 8.08 mm of these voters.
Bush won 41% or 50.02 mm of those who voted in 2000.
Bush won 13% or 0.63 mm of the 4% who voted for Nader et al.

So the total Bush vote was 58.73 million, according to the
preliminary poll. His actual vote was 62.028 million.
Where did he get these 3.3 million votes?

In the FINAL:
Bush won 45% or 9.33 mm of the new voters.
Bush won 43% or 52.46 mm of those who voted in 2000
(IMPOSSIBLE).
Bush won 21% or 0.76 mm of the (revised) 3% who voted for
Nader.

Therefore, the total Bush vote is 62.55 million, according to
the FINAL exit poll (which we have shown to be in error by
4%).

So which do you believe?
Did Bush win 58.73 million votes as determined by the
PRELIMINARY poll of 13047 respondents, and which has been
proven (at least for the voter history weights) to be
accurate to within 1%?

Or did Bush win 62.55 million votes, as determined by the
FINAL exit poll? The FINAL was adjusted to match the recorded
vote and is in error by 4%, according to the adjusted voter
history weights applied to the total recorded vote.

CNN 7:58pm 11027 Sample WP 12:22am 13047 Sample CNN 2:04pm 13660 Sample

Mix1 Bush Kerry Nader Mix2 Bush Kerry Nader Mix3 Bush Kerry Nader


VOTED IN
2000 Mix Bush Kerry Nader Mix Bush Kerry Nader Mix Bush Kerry Nader
No 17.0% 39% 59% 1% 17% 39% 59% 1% 17% 45% 54% 1%
Gore 38.0% 8% 91% 1% 38% 8% 91% 1% 37% 10% 90% 0%
Bush 41.0% 90% 9% 0% 41% 90% 9% 0% 43% 91% 9% 0%
Other 4.0% 13% 65% 16% 4% 13% 65% 16% 3% 21% 71% 3%
100% 47.09% 50.90% 1.19% 100% 47.09% 50.90% 1.19% 100% 51.11% 48.48% 0.26%

GENDER
Male 46.0% 51% 47% 1% 46% 52% 47% 1% 46% 55% 44% 0
Female 54.0% 45% 54% 1% 54% 45% 54% 1% 54% 48% 51% 0
100% 47.76% 50.78% 1.00% 100% 48.22% 50.78% 1.00% 100% 51.22% 47.78% 0.00%

PARTY
ID Mix Bush Kerry Nader Mix Bush Kerry Nader Mix Bush Kerry Nader
Dem 38.0% 9% 90% 1% 38% 9% 90% 1% 37% 11% 89% 0
Rep 36.0% 92% 7% 1% 35% 92% 7% 0% 37% 93% 6% 0
Ind 26.0% 45% 52% 2% 27% 45% 52% 2% 26% 48% 49% 1%
100% 48.24% 50.24% 1.26% 100% 47.77% 50.69% 0.92% 100% 49.69% 49.15% 0.27%

[SouthernDem2004]

12. Ok... So...

The above post seems to be discussing problems with exit polls. So the exit polls are wrong. That does not give any kind of actual proof of anything. It is just a poll.

[BeFree]

10. A computer in NC

Lost over 4,000 votes. Lost, never to be counted.

That shows the computers screw up, whether by design or default. And we could talk all night about default.

Ohio. 'nuff said.

Many cases of people voting for Kerry on a DRE, and when they re-checked how the computer had counted their vote, the machine had selected b**h instead. Like I said, we could talk all night about defaulting.

Then there is the whole cache of incidents that took place in every state with DREs, with hardly any cases of problems favoring Kerry: almost all problems with DREs favored b**h.

As stated earlier, if you want the truth you'd have read all about it before now. It's all here, on DU.

[SouthernDem2004]

13. and I did... Thats when and how I came to DU....

I started reading DU as a source for that very type of info. I read all of the post from the supposed tapes the BBV people found to countless other stories that were about to break but never did. I have tried to keep an open mind but I need some type of proof. No one has come up with any credible proof I am afraid.

[Peace Patriot]

11. SouthernDem2004, let me ask you this: What is your proof that Bush...

...won? TV networks, AP--who hid the results of the exit polls from the American people? The central electronic vote tabulators run on secret, proprietary source code, owned and controlled by Bush "Pioneers"? The Secretaries of State? How do they count the votes? Do they even know how it's done? Are they computer techs? And who advises them on these electronic systems? And how did they verify the vote in paperless systems (or non-paperless ones, for that matter)?

No "proof" is needed. The election was invalid on its face. It was unverifiable and non-transparent--it lacked the two basic requirements of a valid election. And, IN ADDITION, there are volumes of evidence pointing to a wrong result. That is what has gotten all these top statisticians--Ph.D.s from leading universities so exercised--all of them crying foul on the 2004 election and calling for an investigation. Let me just list them for you:

Josh Mitteldorf, Ph.D. - Temple University Statistics Department
Steven F. Freeman, PhD - Center for Organizational Dynamics, University of Pennsylvania
Brian Joiner, PhD - Prof. of Statistics and Director of Statistical Consulting (ret), University of Wisconsin
Frank Stenger, PhD in mathematics - School of Computing, University of Utah
Richard G. Sheehan, PhD - Department of Finance, University of Notre Dame
Elizabeth Liddle, MA - (UK) PhD candidate at the University of Nottingham
Paul F. Velleman, Ph.D. - Department of Statistical Sciences, Cornell University
Victoria Lovegren, Ph.D. - Department of Mathematics, Case Western Reserve University
Campbell B. Read, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Department of Statistical Science, Southern Methodist University
Kathy Dopp, MS in mathematics - USCountVotes, President

Dr. Ron Baiman, Economist/Statistician - senior research specialist, Institute of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois at Chicago; teaches at the University of Chicago

Dr. Webb Mealy

Dr. John Allen Paulos: Professor of mathematics at Temple University; winner of the 2003 American Association for the Advancement of Science award for the promotion of public understanding of science; author of several best-sellers, including Innumeracy and A Mathematician Plays the Stock Market. Monthly "Who's Counting" columnist for ABCNews.com as well as a monthly column for The Guardian.

Dr. Richard Hayes Phillips

Dr. Michael Haut, & the UC Berkeley Quantitative Methods Research Team; Dr. Haut is a nationally-known expert on statistical methods and member of the National Academy of Sciences and the UC Berkeley Survey Research Center.

Are you calling all of these Ph.D.'s with their reputations on the line "conspiracy types"? Have you read all of their reports?

Your statements are very general--and all to the preconceived point that there is no "proof" of fraud. Well, what do you say to the nine Ph.D's in the US Countvotes list who calculate odds of 10 million to one against the skew to Bush in the exit polls vs. the official result in 7 of 50 states?

How do YOU explain that skew?

In the absence of a verifiable, transparent election, exit polls are the best check against fraud--and are used worldwide for just this purpose. We are forced to use this inferential evidence BECAUSE Tom Delay forbade a paper trail requirement when the new electronic voting systems were mandated by Congress. WHY did he block a paper trail requirement? Do you know why? Have you any answer to this?

So the exit polls say not just that Kerry won, but that the way the official tally is skewed to Bush is virtually impossible--in the estimation of all these Ph.D's in statistics and mathematics. They also studied Edison/Mitofsky's complete data (which was withheld until after Bush's inauguration), and discovered that the official explanation for Kerry winning the exit polls (that Republicans were shy of the pollsters) is without foundation in E/M's own data, and in fact the data points the other way--that the exit poll was skewed to Bush (meaning Kerry's margin was probably even larger than the exit poll 3%).

Then there's Ohio. And Florida. And New Mexico. Massive, documented suppression of minority and Democratic votes. Yet more Kerry votes.

And the huge Democratic success in new voter registrations in 2004.

And Dr. Haut's study of Florida--130,000 to 230,000 phantom votes for Bush, in 3 Democratic counties, in electronic vs. other methods of voting.

And Dr. Phillips' study of Miami County (Ohio)'s funny farm numbers.

Are you a statistician, SouthernDem2004? Do you have any expertise, or any enlightenment, to bring to us, regarding these many expert reports?

You say it's all bunk, and you want "proof." Well, where is your proof that you have read all of this, and really know what it's about? You don't say anything credible about it that would prompt me to give your viewpoint consideration. You don't mention any of these reports or their writers or their writers' credentials. You don't say what you disagree with. You don't say why. You give no specifics whatsoever.

And--back to my first question: What is your proof that Bush won? I don't think you can present me with anything that I would consider credible as proof that Bush won. And, lacking such proof--and looking at the evidence for an invalid election--I would have to say that the evidence for a Kerry win gains even more in credibility. What are they hiding? Why didn't they permit a paper trail? Why did they keep the vote counting code secret? Why didn't they allow a credible recount in Ohio? Why did the TV networks suppress evidence of a Kerry win? Why was that evidence so hard to get?

But I'm open-minded. I really am. I've tried to read all of this in an open-minded way, with my inner critic on high alert. I'm not a statistician, but I do have academic training, and a lot of experience reading B.S. expert reports (long story). I think I have a pretty good B.S. detector. And I HATE having to agree that the election was stolen. It throws my world all awry. I would love to see someone blow this thesis out of the water--although I think that that would be very hard to do, at this point.

What gets me is the SUPPRESSION of information and discussion. When those exit polls showed a Kerry win, it should have been fully disclosed, on election night, and a full national discussion should have ensued--and investigation of the election. Instead, this deadly silence fell upon our country. And that alone stinks to high heaven.

I would like to hear your answers to these questions--and to my general challenge of your lack of credibility, lack of detail, lack of answers to all these Ph.D.'s.

[SouthernDem2004]

15. My lack of credibility????

I stated my personal opinion. I never presented myself as an expert on anything. I never stated anything other then opinion. I did not lay out any facts or state I was any type of authority on anything. Since you can provide no credible proof you must feel the need to personally attack those that do not agree with you. I will not waste my time replying further since you feel the need to attack me personally. Good luck with that....


Peace

[Chi]

21. Heya

Heya SouthernDem2004 (waves)

I am curious about something in your post. I usually get quite a bit of my news from links on this forum, and therefore may be not well informed about outside news stories.
what are the items you are referring to in this line...

"I listened to all of the supposed proof that never panned out."

Thanks in Advance

[SmileMaker]

23. You read ALL of the threads and conspiracy sites? !

You are amazing! Do YOU have facts?

This is a place to test theories that are grounded in facts - evidence that the GOP cheated is in all of those links, show us some evidence of Bush's win and I will listen. Otherwise, stop making trouble about facts without offering any of your own.

[SouthernDem2004]

26. How about a National election with members of both parties...

monitoring the count. How is that for a fact?

[BeFree]

29. When did that happen?

Oh yeah, in the Ukraine. Uh, wasn't that the one they had a revote?

Look at the legal battles in Ohio, it was monitored by the Dems and they cried FOUL! But what do you care?

Like I said, nice try, Kali.

[SouthernDem2004]

35. Who exactly cried foul?

[Kevin Spidel]

14. hmm not the response i expected n/t

[Peace Patriot]

17. Since SouthernDem2004 has walked away from the conversation,

I'll just say this about the exchange we just had. SoDem takes what I said as an attack, but I was actually asking him genuine questions. Yeah, I was a little irritated, because he just keeps repeating this phrase "no credible proof" with no indication that he's read and considered any of the evidence, and has anything to say about it. I told him why "proof" is impossible (Republicans deliberately prevented it). I described some of the evidence of fraud--the inferential kind of evidence we are forced to rely on--and gave him the creds of the people who have evaluated this evidence and have cried foul on the election. And he doesn't offer any response.

I can only conclude that he hasn't read any of it, which makes his opinion non-credible. (You don't have to be an expert to be familiar with the evidence , and to be able to draw conclusions from it and criticize it.) But I WANTED him to respond. Like Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemene, I would like this "cup" to pass from me. I don't want to do what I know that I now have to do--having read this evidence: devote my life to helping my countrymen get our country back, by restoring our right to vote. I'm willing to be talked out of it. But, so far, no one has been able to give me any proof that Bush won, and that the evidence that Kerry won is wrong.

As I kind of suspected, SoDem is like those Cardinals in the Vatican who refused to look into Galileo's telescope, for fear that it would disturb their fixed notions about the Cosmos. A flat-worlder. (Flat world is a reasonable opinion if you ignore the overwhelming but necessarily inferential evidence of a spherical world, and are content with the perspective of an ant. You'll never get to the moon, though.)

"Peace" isn't silence, SoDem. So I was irritated. True enough. But I really wanted you to address the evidence.

[SouthernDem2004]

18. If you have presented your evidence without the personal attack I

might have taken it seriously. This post is just another attack based on nothing. All be it a more articulate attack this post is no different. Personal attacks are fairly common here so I tend to ignore the posters.

You do not know what I have and have not read. Amazing the conclusions you are able to make! You managed to throw in the flat Earthers and religion. Bravo. I admire your sense of superiority!


Why should I answer your "evidence?" Would you have a discussion with a rude person on purpose when you had a choice? I have a choice.

Now I will walk away from your continued hostile and uncivil attacks.


Peace

[tommcintyre]

22. Do you believe "beyond a reasonable doubt" that really Bush won fairly?

The fact that you're here, and showing interest, and taking the time to post, indicates you probably have "reasonable" doubts too.

I happen to believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Bushco stole this election. But we don't have to agree on this point to want the same thing - top-level impartial election fraud investigation, and all necessary election reform. I think ALL who have posted here so far would be very happy with this. And this is what is really needed, isn't it?

Of course, you should feel free to pursue your perception of "proof" here, and elsewhere. But until we have an investigation of the scope (and resources) of, say, the 9/11 Commission, your perception of proof may not be uncovered.

Meanwhile, ALL of us here can work together to encourage this level of investigation - and consequent reform (and prosecution as appropriate).

BTW: We already have a good base of people to work with that have doubts about the election:

January 7th, 2005 National Annenberg Election Survey (page 2 - 30% of American voters were NOT “very confident that their vote had been counted accurately”.
http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/naes/2004_03_mindset-bush-kerry-supporters_%2001-05_pr.pdf

<I'll bet this number has gone up since then. And, if we all keep talking about, it will continue to increase until we have the "critical mass" of support and outrage necessary to trigger the needed large-scale investigation(s).>

[SouthernDem2004]

27. I am willing to listen and always have been...

I do not think the election was stolen because no credible evidence has been presented. I came to sites like this one and read the posts and links but nothing ever panned out.

Where there problems? Certainly, there always have been.

I still listen but I need more...

[BeFree]

30. Panned out?

Gee, ya think it might be that they covered their tracks so they wouldn't get caught red-handed?

Look, they stole the election in 2000. There is hard core, irrefutable evidence of that.

So, given that they had motive, and opportunity, and given that they had a history of stealing, coupled with the evidence presented here, it makes no sense for anyone who has read this board with an open mind to conclude anything other than that the most recent election was also stolen.

Your credibility is shot.

[SouthernDem2004]

33. Lol, whats with the credibility personal insults again? Did I...

ever claim to be an authority on anything? Lol Notice my posts started with., "In my opinion." So..... If someone states an opinion you do not like they lack credibilty??? I never made any claims.

Also.... according to your very first sentence the lack or proof is proof????? By that reasoning, there is a God, UFOs are real and Big Foot is roaming free!!!!

[BeFree]

37. Crediblity

We get a lot of people coming 'round here trying to throw us off the track. Wouldn't any detective be suspicious of someone hanging around and basically stating: "You are wasting your time, I read it all and know nothing happened."

Well, that's you. We are, in a sense, doing the detective work here.

The differenece is - We Believe something awful happened. And you don't. So, are we to believe you are credible?

You are complaining that we point that out to you. Ask yourself: Do you often get that reaction? Could it be they are on to something, and you don't know half the story?

The simple fact is: when someone says they have read the whole story and still don't Believe, it is incredible.

[SouthernDem2004]

38. Ever thought you may be wrong? I am willing to bet you haven't.

I am willing to bet you formed your opinion the second Bush was delcared the winner. I hesitate to make assumptions about others but it seems fairly common among the fraud crew.

How can anyone throw you off track???? It is a semi-free country and you can spend your time doing what you wish. Making accusations without evidence is irresponsible but whatever floats their boat...

Sure, when a few people are questioned about the lack of proof they automaticly attack the person asking the questions. Wonder why that is... I wonder why some get upset when people ask for proof.

Until they can come up with something better then exit polls I and it appears the majority of people will not believe such wild accusations.

[BeFree]

39. See, now you are questioning my crediblity

And I'm not complaining, it's ok. It's completely fair on DU. 'We Believe', but we don't believe everything we read. Ain't it great!

[SouthernDem2004]

40. Incorrect. Reread my post.

[BeFree]

41. See, it's ok

We are supposed to call out whenever someone posts here, if we find it incredible. It's normal, and you've got the hang of it. Now, quit complaining.

[SouthernDem2004]

44. lol

[tommcintyre]

31. "no credible evidence"? Better not tell Barbara Boxer that now! ;)

On January 6th, she staked her political career, and set historical precedent, on "no credible evidence"? Somebody shoulda told her beforehand! Or those 9 Ph d's, or Steve Freeman, or Rep. Conyers, Kucinich and, for that matter, all those other Congress people who stood up too on 1/6? If there is "no credible evidence" they (and many many other credible people) really blew it and made total fools of themselves!

Just kidding of course. ;)

I think you're just confusing evidence with proof. It's easy to do, people do it all the time. For example, you can't prove the sun will come up tomorrow; but there sure is plenty of evidence that it will, isn't there?. And what about the "Theory" of Evolution? Why isn't it called the "Law" of Evolution? Yep, it can't be proved. So we act on evidence (without proof) all the time, don't we?

So the knowledgable people who are acting on the surprisingly large body of "credible evidence" of substantial election fraud are in good company, aren't they? (ALL these credible people wouldn't get so worked up over just minor "problems", would they?)

Assuming you are sincere (and I will not assume otherwise at this point); I think you have been "setting the bar too high" for you to take action on this issue. The following quote from a recent election reform hearing in my state demonstrates just how low the threshold of belief can be to take the needed action:

"If there is a sizable group of voters who distrust the machines, we should take the necessary steps to reassure them," said Jean Aoki, legislative chairwoman for the League of Women Voters of Hawai'i.

<And remember, the League of Women Voters is famous for it's impartiality - that's why its been chosen to oversee so many Presidential debates.>

There is more than enough credible evidence (according to the knowledgeable "experts") to create legitimate "reasonable doubt" in reasonably open-minded people (even moderate Repubs by my experience). So our job now is to present this evidence to as many open-minded people as we can as quickly as possible. If we do this, we will build the necessary critical mass to bring about both meaningful election reform and fraud investigation.

FYI: Here's a link I ran into today that will give you ALL the evidence you will ever need, for yourself, and to inform others.

"Quick Summary of 2004 Election Fraud!"
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/02/311231.shtml

[SouthernDem2004]

34. Thank you...

For the non-insulting and very good post. Another problem I have is with the term "probable cause." As a Police Officer the term has a different meaning. I think the fraud crew may have reasonable suspicion in their minds but not probable cause. It may sould like mincing words but they are accusing people of a crime and the terms do apply.

Here is my problem with the exit polls:

1) They are just polls. Poll results can be skewed by asking only certain people questions or the way the question is phrased. If polls were so good we would not need an election.

2) Alot of the threads on DU examining the polls included assumption due to incomplete data. The networks did not release the complete data so assupmtions were made.

3) Have you ever been asked to do an exit poll? I have but only once. I declined. So some voters are not going to tell people how they voted while at the poll.

4) Many polls leading up to the election had Bush as the winner.

5) The early polls were leaked by Democrats. Obvious reasoning behind that. Makes you wonder who gave them the polling data and if the questions were skewed.

6) Nine Democrats with PhDs make claims. Only nine??? Heck, I could probable round up nine PhDs that support clubbing baby seals for fur. I am sure I could find atleast a dozen that deny the holocaust.

As for the secret source code:

1) Software companies do not generally release their source code. Ask the despot Bill Gates. The courts have to drag him kicking and screaming to release any info...

As for Electronic Voting machines:

1) Yea, very bad idea. Even Republicans agree on this one.

As for Voter Suppression:

1) Waiting in long lines was not unusual. I had to wait several hours to vote in a Republican stronghold. Voter turn out was just higher then usual.

2) The number of voting machines in polling places was the same number as previous years.

3) Convicted felons are not allowed to vote in some states. Nothing new...

Voting machine problems:

1) Unfortunately nothing new.

2) Errors favoring Bush. The people that won are not going to complain. This is certainly something that needs to be looked into and is a good argument against these machines.

3) Claims of machines changing votes. Going to need more then a few claims. It could be something as simple as people touching the wrong button.

As for a statement in your link, "The intense BushCon efforts to skew the election in such baldfaced, illegal ways in Ohio, Florida and several other key states indicates their fear of Kerry's big new voter registration advantage and the enthusiasm of the grass roots campaign. It was looking like a Kerry blowout--so they had to use every fraud plan they had in place."

1) What fraud plan? Mighty strong accusation without any proof.

2) The new voter registration was a failure. I complained about this before the election. The registration was target at younger individuals that were to lazy or unconcerned about the process to take 10 minutes of their time to go register. They had to go to campuses, malls and bribe people with concerts. Not a very motivated electorate. Also, the people that were sent out to register people were often hired and not locals. Bad idea. You can register people all day long but if they are not motivated they will not bother to vote.

Also, Zogbys opinion on approval rating:

1) Zogby is a Democrat and stated Kerry would win prior to the election. He lost his credibility and impartialness after that.

2) No President since WWII has won with a low approval rating. Hmmm They did before though.

3) A war was taking place. We historicly do not change Presidents during conflicts.

4) Approval ratings are from a poll.... Enough said: http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm


In summation:

These are very strong criminal accusations being made. There needs to be some type of actual evidence. Polls are not evidence. Waitng in line is not evidence. Copyrighted source code is not evidence. Past approval ratings are not evidence. In order to get people to listen you are going to need proof and not just accusations.

The fraud crew wonders why no one is listening to them. They assume everyone is a moron but them. They personally attack those that do not believe as they do. Makes it hard to listen to them or take them seriously.

Once again, Thank you Tommcintyre for the above post. I read your link but it still did not offer what is needed. If they can not convince Democrats, they will never convince the Nation.

[Mairead]

19. That's because most people didn't get it

And it also implied that the outcome was legitimate, something few here believe.

[BeFree]

16. Yeah, the electorate

They showed in droves to continue the reign of GWB, eh? NOT.

But, point taken. There were a few folks who told me that Kerry was a gay loving liar. And that Dems needed to get back to supporting the people... I said: WHAT?

Ya know, maybe it is a good thing gay couples, as long as GWB has anything to say about it, will never have an abortion? LOL

[meganmonkey]

20. I think it's funny

I think it is a joke, and it is funny.

Those damn gay abortion-getters!

:P

[Kevin Spidel]

24. exactly! that was the point!!!!

[Kevin Spidel]

25. people are just way too serious in here!

live a little! this post was funny damn it! now i get all these serious threads! A little levity people!

[meganmonkey]

28. LOL!

I am just so conditioned to think that fraud is a given...it had to be a joke!

:toast:

[garybeck]

32. I disagree 100%

if all the votes were counted properly, we'd be talking about the first time an incumbent wartime president was defeated.

the whole thing about "morals and values" deciding the election is lies and propoganda. we shouldn't perpetuate it.

[garybeck]

42. correction, I disagree 100000000% n/t

[Kevin Spidel]

45. it was HUMOR people!!!!!!!!!!

[Pacifist Patriot]

36. Pithy indeed, but here is how I would amend the summary...

The Democrats thought that a disastrous war, national bankruptcy, erosion of liberties, corporate takeover of government, environmental destruction, squandering our economic and moral leadership in the world, and systematic administration lying would be of concern to the electorate. Their mistake was in not preparing for fair and open elections when they had the power in the 1990s.

The Republicans banked on a major concern of the electorate being to keep gay couples from having an abortion. If that failed, they at least owned the vote count.

[meganmonkey]

43. IT IS A JOKE, EVERYONE!!

It's okay to laugh!

Maybe Kevin should have used some smilies or something, but if I am not mistaken, this is a joke pointing out how ridiculous it is that America has suckered into believing that this crap decided the election...

The joke is assuming that fraud is a given...

I can't believe no one gets this.

:silly:

[Kevin Spidel]

46. THANK YOU!

Gesus... I guess I am in the land of the no smiles, no humor, no sarcasim.

people.. i have been in here for a long time... you know where i stand on this fraud issue. that was not the point of this post.

it was to get a little cute laugh and show how rediculous the american political climate has become!

and for those who did not get it... here is my smilies

;) :) ;) :)

:crazy:
:crazy:
:crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy:

[keepthemhonest]

48. got the joke

I thought it was pretty funny. Some people just went off on a tangent and yet others just don't have a sense of humor. Thanks for keeeping it light.

[garybeck]

47. ya, here's the problem

it was a joke only because of the context. the exact same summary could be posted elsewhere and it would not be a joke at all.

in fact, you can go to many "liberal" and democratic websites and discussion groups and find this exact same type of talk, and it's taken very seriously and people are acting on this type of thinking. sadly some are responding by thinking the answer is to move to the center. Exactly Rove's plan.

I knew it was a joke when I saw who posted it, but there is danger in perpetuating these lies, even in gest, especially in text-only communication because people can be taken seriously regardless of the intention.

Gary