IT COMES DOWN TO THIS: WHERE DID BUSH FIND 13 MILLION NEW VOTES? KISS...

[TruthIsAll]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x367600#367629

He had 62 million recorded votes to Kerry's 59mm.

Assuming all 49 million Bush 2000 voters who were still alive came to vote in 2004, that's 13 million additional votes.

Did he get them from Gore?
Gore voters don't like Bush.
They voted for the winner in 2000 and SCOTUS took it away from them.

Did he get them from Nader?
Kerry won over 70% of the 3 million Nader 2000 voters.

Did he get them from 21mm New voters?
Kerry won first-time voters and those who stayed home in 2000 by 55-60%.

So whose left? Where did they come from?

Did 13 million Gore voters decide to stay home this time and not vote for Kerry?

IMPOSSIBLE.

[wakeme2008]

1. Touchscreens and opt scanners programmers

but you knew that already. :)

[TruthIsAll]

18. A LINK TO THE IMPLAUSIBLE BUSH TURNOUT ASSUMPTIONS

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x367600

[TruthIsAll]

37. THE GRAPH

[TruthIsAll]

38. VERY CLOSE TO THE TRUTH

THE TRUE VOTE

2000	Weights	Votes	Kerry	Bush	Other
New	18.00%	22.0	12.5	9.0	0.5
Gore	40.10%	49.0	45.0	4.0	*
Bush	39.28%	48.0	4.0	44.0	*
Nader	2.62%	3.2	1.8	0.5	0.9
					
Total	100.0%	122.2	63.30	57.50	1.40
			51.80%	47.05%	1.15%

[In Truth We Trust]

2. kick for reality check. Fuck you George W Bush**

[acmejack]

6. I second!

unfortunately, it is we who are fucked, but I agree with the sentiment...

[k8conant]

3. He obviously invented or stole those votes...

but how in hell are we going to get him out of office now? I've become discouraged by the fact that even though everyone like you, TruthIsAll, shows what happened we still can't overturn the faked election results.

:silly: :dem: :wtf:

[whistle]

4. Your post deserves to be in this thread....

<snip>

He had 62.03mm recorded votes to Kerry's 59.03mm

Assuming all 48.69mm previous Bush 2000 voters who were still alive came to vote in 2004, that's 13.34mm additional votes.

Did he get them from Gore?
Did he get them from Nader?
Did he get them from new voters?

IMPOSSIBLE.

<end>

I don't know the answer. Perhaps some students of political science or mathematics or statistics could shed some truth on this whole affair and earn a PhD out of their efforts in the process. Ralph Nader had some votes also, but far fewer than he got in 2000. Another important number I would think, would be the number of new registrations and their respective party affiliations for 2004. It seems there was a lot of voters blocked from registering, or whose registrations were disqualified mainly by republicans in minority precincts.

The numbers are all very confusing and it would be nice to have some objective, clear, logical numbers that can be reconciled to examine. At the moment 2 plus 2 can not be made to equal 4 in any of the arguments I have seen advanced. In the accounting and auditing profession, when that happens, it is a clear red flag that something is very wrong with either the numbers or the people who are presenting the numbers.

[kiwi_expat]

5. How about: Evangelicals who didn't vote in 2000 - and refused NEP?

Reluctant Bush VOTER hypothesis: Bush's lead came from Evangelical Christians who "did not vote in 2000 but did before" - and did NOT participate in the exit poll.

It was hard enough to get them to even vote, let alone fill out a questionnaire. :-)

(Assume that other Bush voters responded at the same rate as Kerry voters.)


According to this hypothesis, the actual "did not vote in 2000" percent would be much larger than shown in any exit poll. And the actual Bush percent of the "did not vote in 2000" would be very large indeed.

[TruthIsAll]

7. Read my post; I provided a link. Read it. rBr is a non-issue.

/

[JustJill]

8. I am so sick of the rBr lie

[kiwi_expat]

9. I don't see that your linked-post precludes the RBV hypothesis.

Here is your linked-post:

"WHERE DID BUSH GET 13.34 MILLION ADDITIONAL VOTES FROM?
He had 62.03mm recorded votes to Kerry's 59.03mm
Assuming all 48.69mm previous Bush 2000 voters who were still alive came to vote in 2004, that's 13.34mm additional votes.
Did he get them from Gore?
Did he get them from Nader?
Did he get them from new voters?
IMPOSSIBLE."

*****
Obviously some of Bush's voters came from Gore voters and newly registered voters. Why could the rest not have come from voters that did not vote in 2000 but had voted previously? Your linked-post doesn't say.

I didn't realize we were not supposed to include non-respondents in any hypothesis. I was not referring to the across-the-board rBr hypothesis that has been discussed to death. I was hypothesizing that a certain sub-group of Bush voters - Evangelical Christians who did not usually vote - could be the sort of people who would refuse to be interviewed.

I'm not saying it's true. I'm just saying that maybe it could be, at least partially, true.


I realize now that your question was just rhetorical.

[TruthIsAll]

11. Did you follow the logic of my post?

Look at how many voters who were NOT new, but who did not vote in 2000 voted this time (6%, as opposed to 11% brand new voters). And look at how many of the 6% voted for Kerry.

My question was NOT rhetorical.

I suggest you read it thorougly.

I show that even if one assumes 100% Bush voter turnout, and various combinations of less than 100% Gore voter turnout, Kerry wins, even when his vote percentages decline from the base 13047 exit poll numbers.

What is it about rBr that you find at all credible.

Look at the REAL numbers, the numbers I have given you.

[TruthIsAll]

17. My bad. The link was to a reply to the post. Here is the post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x367600

[kiwi_expat]

31. Why would an additional 3 million lapsed-voters be "impossible"?

"Because of the necessary constraints (122.26 million total
2004 vote, maximum number of 2000 voters alive who could vote
in 2004) the difference had to made up by New voters - 3
million more than the 21.15 million, as confirmed by the (Did
Not Vote) 17% weighting. And more importantly, by the voting
identity equation. Clearly impossible." -TIA

[TruthIsAll]

43. Kiwi, do the math. Why are you having a problem?

What the hell is a lapsed voter? If you mean those who did not vote in 2000 but did before that, they are included in the Did Not Vote group. They comprised just 6%, brand new voters 11%.

You really want to believe rBr, don't you?

Total Votes = (Brand New voters + Old voters who stayed home in 2000)+ Gore voters still alive + Bush Voters still alive + Nader Voters still alive

Now do me a favor.
In your reply to this, be specific.
No jargon.

I gave you a sensitivity analysis to work with.
Look close.
No bullshit.
No rBr fantasies.
Real numbers.

[kiwi_expat]

45. If the extra Bush voters "did not vote in 2000 but did before that"....

refused to be interviewed by NEP (as presented in the RBV hypothesis), the actual voters "who did not vote in 2000 but did before that" would be a much greater proportion of vote2000 than shown in the exit polls.

I coined the term "lapsed-voters" because it was shorter than "voters who did not vote in 2000 but did before that". I was not trying to be cute or mis-leading.

[LosinIt]

14. rBr?? please elaborate

[TruthIsAll]

16. reluctant Bush responder n/t

/

[FogerRox]

12. OK -- lets see--TIA needs 13 million votes

about a 120 million voted in Nov 2004

Bush's total religious vote base is about 12% which equals roughly TIAs 13 million votes. It would seem that Bush's entire base can barely make up TIAs needed 13 million votes. SO that base would have had to not vote in 2000 then all 100% would have had to voted in 2004.
------------------------------------------------
An incumbant gets his may/june approval rating in NOV. Bush was at 44%--Kerry gets 55% with 1% for 3rd party votes.

Bush -------------44%
Kerry ------------55%
3rd party----------1%

Kerrys 11% win in Nov. 2004
----------------------------------------

Ive been saying this for a while. TIAs 13 million votes dovetails into what Ive been saying since last year. I think its pretty clear at this point that 12-13 million votes were at play in NOv. 2004

[TruthIsAll]

13. But that is impossible, since there were 21 million new voters

and 55-60% voted for Kerry.

There were 21 million voters WHO DID NOT VOTE IN 2000 out of the total 122 million who voted in 2004.

Breaking it down:
11% of 122 = 13 million (never voted)
6% of 122 = 8 million (voted before 2000)

17% of 122= 21 million

And the newly registered voters were mostly Democrats.

IMPOSSIBLE.

[FogerRox]

15. of course its impossible---that Bush won---

By the way heres me saying that incumbant stuff

http://bushflashforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2937&highlight=incumbant

http://bushflashforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2784&highlight=incumbant

http://bushflashforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3517&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=incumbant&start=30

[Peace Patriot]

27. Yeah, kiwi-expat, this is what Karl Rove and Dick Cheney would like us...

...to be believe. They were talking about it again the other day. (You might think we haven't dented their consciousness, but when Karl Rove suddenly starts talking about their "invisible" voter registration campaign, as Cheney did before the election, you know they're just a bit worried.)

There is no evidence for this Evangelical phenomenon in the election. None. Zero. It is an ILLUSION. On the other hand, the Democrats had a huge success in new voter registrations (almost 60/40). You think all those people registered as DEMOCRATS to vote for Bush? You think all those family members, co-workers, fellow students and motivated volunteers who pushed them to register as DEMOCRATS, and who told them this is the most important election in U.S. history, voted for Bush, or...what? ...themselves forgot to vote?

We've got a big fat elephant in the room (so to speak) that the Bushites and their lapdog media monopolies aren't talking about: There is ZERO EVIDENCE of enthusiasm for Bush-- then or now--and OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE of enthusiasm for Kerry or for ABB (anybody but Bush). You ever tried to convince a Nader voter of ANYTHING, let alone to vote for a pro-war, globalist, Skull & Bones Democrat? They came out in droves to vote for ABB! They didn't sit on their hands in protest. They didn't vote for Nader in protest. That's a sure indication of the awesome and widespread passion to get rid of Bush.

Where did Bush get his 13 million votes? He stole a good many of them from Republicans who had turned against him. That's what I think.

I've written about this "rBr"--that I think the critical factor was really "rrrk"--Reluctant Responder Republican voter for Kerry--able to vote for Kerry because it's a secret ballot, but afraid to admit the vote publicly, to a strange pollster at their polling place, for fear of repercussions within their coercive Republican communities. These would be people who don't like having to sign a loyalty oath to the president to attend a campaign rally--or who despise Bush's war, or his deficit, or Bush himself and his Saudi friends. I think there were a lot of them, and I think their votes were deleted or changed to Bush, and that was the least detectable place for the election fraudsters to do so.

Yeah, they shredded Democratic voter registrations and committed massive violations of the Voting Rights Act in Ohio, Florida and other places. I think that these were signs of their desperation to stop a Kerry landslide. And these are why Kerry won the exit polls by only 3%. The exit polls only count people who actually made it to the polling place. 3%--despite an illegally gleaned Democratic voter base. If you estimate the real vote, including the tens of thousands of gleaned minority, student and other Democratic voters (Greg Palast puts the number of gleaned black/brown voters at 1 million for this election), and add in an estimated percentage of Republican dissenters (whom the exit polls missed)--I think it was 3% to 4% of the vote, but say, 2%--we are looking at such a landslide (a true winning margin of 6% or more). And whether it was a landslide or not, it most certainly was a Kerry win by a comfortable margin.

Literally everything you look at--every set of data, every anecdote about the election, all the election incident reports, Bush's dismal approval ratings over the last year, and the overwhelming disapproval of all his policies--points to this conclusion, except the official tally and the crap you get on TV and in the news monopoly press.

And I think Republicans voting for Kerry were a key component of this victory, and also a key to how it got stolen (probably Bushite Republican election officials looking the other way when the electronic voting machines and tabulators were tampered with).

Those who say that this is a non-partisan issue are making a vital point--and I haven't credited them much in the past, because I have felt so partisanly offended. But if what I think is true--that large numbers defected from Bush, avoided or lied to exit pollsters out of fear, and had their votes stolen because it was easy--we have a tremendous untapped potential of voter activism to help reform this election system.

Cliff Arnebeck (himself a Republican) said something about this early on, and I noted it but didn't think too much about it--because I thought, if Republicans were cheated of their votes, why haven't more of them spoken up--why are they so invisible in this movement? However, it may be that fear is still hard at work in Republican circles, as it may have been in the exit polls. And Bush defectors would be even more afraid now, with Bush still in power.

They might not be able to admit a Kerry vote, at this point, but there is less reason for fear from merely advocating for transparent elections. The Bush Republican social culture of repression and coercion--and the overweening power of local Bushite political establishments--might paralyze some. But others might be more courageous and patriotic--and may also be of a mind to take back their party. In any case, I see that it would be a mistake to write them off, and that, in fact--given some Democratic Party leaders' complicity in this fraudulent election system--it may be that we should be giving more thought to coalition-building among ordinary citizens of all reasonable political persuasions, AGAINST the entrenched political establishment. (I know I'm not the first to say this--I'm just acknowledging it here, and also seeing a need to discuss it more.)

[dchill]

32. If that doesn't convince...

kiwi, nothing will. Great post - if I weren't already convinced, I would be now. But I've been following TIA since weeks before the "election." His stuff is the real deal.

"Invisible" means "dirty" in this case. Their only voter registration campaign was disposing of Democratic registrations.

[Kip Humphrey]

42. Forget the Repugs, WE ARE THE REAL MAJORITY - Let's leverage this

While I personally know life-long Republicans who voted for Kerry or didn't vote for Bush, I fail to see why, given 64 million Americans who came out 11/2 to kick Bush out, we need to court Republicans or anyone else. Seems to me 64 million are sufficient to take our country back. Lets concentrate on informing the 64 million about the stolen election and mobilizing them to act to regain our democracy. Hell, we did it for Kerry last year. Let's do it again this year for our democracy!

Something simple like registering Americans for VVPB:

I want to vote by hand counted VVPB in 2006
Signed,_______________________ Precinct#:________ State:__

I want to vote by hand counted VVPB in 2006
Signed,_______________________ Precinct#:________ State:__

I want to vote by hand counted VVPB in 2006
Signed,_______________________ Precinct#:________ State:__

I want to vote by hand counted VVPB in 2006
Signed,_______________________ Precinct#:________ State:__

I want to vote by hand counted VVPB in 2006
Signed,_______________________ Precinct#:________ State:__

...

A few million signatures should get the attention of the fearful politicos and maybe even the press.

[clem_c_rock]

10. so much about this election was "IMPOSIBLE"

Kick it to the top

[autorank]

19. Smoking Gun!!!

I'm at work but this post is stunningly simple. Where did Bush get the votes? Where's the beef? I need to review this and the other TIA post of today in more detail when I have time ...

but IMHO this thread and the 2000 results/data set are the basis for THE ESSENTIAL DEBATE on statistical foundations for election fraud. Let's see who responds, what they say. It's time to have the critics put up or shut up.

[Pawel K]

20. Yeah, but by the same token where did Kerry pick up 9 million votes?

I'm not here to ruin the parade, just want to question this a bit. In 2000 Gore got almost 51 million votes compared to Bush's 50. If 70% of Nader voters voted Kerry this time that only accounts for about 2 million votes.

Maybe we should look how many he picked picked up in each state (probably done already somewhere around here).

[FogerRox]

21. 2004 was expected to an election of hi turn out

[Pawel K]

22. Ok, but you could use the same argument for why Bush got that many

I just want a clearer explaination from Truthisall on this; I am just having a little trouble connecting this to a smoking gun which could be just my lack of experiance in statistics.

[TruthIsAll]

23. You forget: Kerry got 54-59% of New voters (21 million)

Check the National Exit Poll.

National Exit Poll: 
13047 respondents @ 12:22am					

Using the actual weightings and the exit poll percentages,
Kerry wins by 5.91 million votes (51.94% - 47.10%).				

Gore turnout: 100.0%
Bush turnout: 100.0%	

Total	Voted 2000	
              Mix	Kerry	Bush	Nader	
21.150	No	17.30%	57.00%	41.00%	2.00%	

Consisting of:					
13.448  New	11.00%	56.00%	43.00%	1.00%	
7.702	Old	6.30%	58.75%	37.51%	3.75%	
						
49.214	Gore	40.25%	91.00%	8.00%	1.00%	
48.690	Bush	39.82%	9.00%	91.00%	0.00%	
3.206	Nader	2.62%	71.00%	21.00%	8.00%	
						
122.26	Total	100.0%	51.94%	47.10%	0.96%	
		122.26	63.50	57.59	1.17	

[TruthIsAll]

24. Kerry picked up at least 13 million votes this way...

Gore Voters :49 million (of 51 mm, assume 2 mm died)
Nader voters: 2 million (70% of 3 mm Nader votes)
New voters: 12 million (57% of 21 mm)

Total 63 million.

Very simple.

[Pawel K]

25. but didn't Kerry only get 59 million?

So where did the extra 3 million come from?

I'm sure you are making sense to other people but I'm simply not getting it. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

[TruthIsAll]

26. Kerry got 63 million, Bush 57....

Have you heard the election was stolen?
If not, welcome to DU..

I just showed you where he got the numbers.
Check the 13047 Exit Poll calculations using REAL weights.

[Peace Patriot]

28. Pawel K--huge Dem success in new voter registration (nearly 60/40)...

...and when you figure how that happened--family, friends, co-workers and highly motivated volunteers urging non-voters to register and vote (such an important election!), and what THAT means as to Gore repeat voter motivation, and combine the new voters, and the motivated Gore voters, and the Nader voters who flocked to Kerry to get Bush out, you have a 4 million vote Kerry victory.

(Switch voters-Dems for Bush, Repubs for Kerry, were a wash--according to polls--although I think the polls missed a significant anti-Bush vote among Republicans who wouldn't answer pollsters out of fear of Bush bullies. But such a switch would not have made a win-lose difference. The new voters, Gore voters and Nader voters are sufficient for a comfortable Kerry victory).

You have to ask yourself why new voters were registering as Democrats in such great numbers--far beyond overall national party affiliation numbers. To vote for...Bush? They registered as DEMOCRATS to vote for Bush? Come on.

Numbers are wonderful, and often teach lessons to the human mind about making guesses and assumptions, but at some point, you have to bring a bit of intuition into it--especially when the numbers stand for people in a political process. Why would the Democrats have a blowout success in new voter registration in 2004? Because everybody loved Bush, and his war, and his deficit, and wanted to "re-elect" the thief of 2000? How did that blowout success in new Dem registration happen? (Obviously, it was Gore voters pushing their friends and family.) What do the numbers involved MEAN? And how, given all the above facts and a bit of intuition, did they "lose" the election?

Naysayers (and Bush political operatives) put up a couple of maybe's: maybe Evangelicals had some kind of invisible campaign to vote this time as never before; maybe they were shy of exit pollsters. No data to back it up. But maybe. And...what?

How did Bush "overcome" a 4 million vote Kerry victory? Dems voting for Bush? Where is the evidence for it (against all the evidence against it)? A surge of old Republican voters? Where is the evidence for THAT? It was a big turnout across the board (which, by the way, has always historically favored the Democrats).

And all these mental gymnastics are put forward in support of an official vote tally that was controlled by major donors to the Bush-Cheney campaign, using secret, proprietary software in the vote counting machines?

So, look at the numbers, and look at the facts, and allow yourself to feel it just a bit. What does it feel like? What does it smell like?

[Melissa G]

29. This question was where our investigations began....

Those of us who worked and followed the election knew it would be close BUT HANDS DOWN DEMS OUT-REGISTERED R****"S. HANDS DOWN WE TURNED OUT A MORE MOTIVATED BASE evidenced by the long lines at Dem heavy precincts. The New Voters who were motivated by talks and films all across the country came out for Kerry.

There was no corresponding phenomena for Bush at this scale. I'm in Texas and I know scores of previous Bush supporters who voted for Kerry and were admitting it vociferously.

The 13 million new Bush voters WAS the smoking gun for me!

[althecat]

34. Yip... I could find us some links... but Florida and NY Deserve attn.

I started a project to find where * found his new voters and that threw up some unexpected answers... we never really completed that research... it may be worth doing so now that things have calmed down a bit.

I will have a look but one thing I remember right off the block... Florida's republican voting numbers have increased by well over 100% since 1988... if you assume that 2000 and 2002 numbers were also rigged this makes some sense.

My posts on this are linked here if you are interested
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=34663&mesg_id=34743

In the initial count it was 8-11 million votes.. wasn't till all the provisionals and others were counted till the full scale of this was known.

Also there was a stagering level of voter growth in quite a few states like NY... states which GWB lost.. but it was these "overall" numbers which led to our calls for an investigation being ignored.

[kster]

30. kick.nt

[feelthebreeze]

33. kick

[althecat]

35. Where Bush's New Voters Were....

For raw numbers see...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=19390

Here's the short version.

1. Bush did not pick up any vote at all on the West Coast.. in fact he lost ground in both Washington and California. This is interesting as this is arguably where the BBV machine manufacturers have been receiving the most heat. However it could reflect a relative lack of interest in so-called "moral issues" out west.

2. The five states I picked on the basis that they are known to have lots of voting machines (and particularly Diebold machines) had a significantly higher percentage increase in bush voters than average… 25% compared to 17% nationally.

3. Likewise the swing states also had a higher average rate of new bush voters at 21%. This however might be expected as they also had much more active campaigns.

4. Among the 31 states I examined were three big democratic states NY, NJ and IL. I selected them on a hunch because a) they are unlikely to be suspected of being used in a vote rigging exercise, but b) necessary to include if you want to achieve a large across the board popular vote gain that does not look too suspicious. These three states averaged a 21% vote gains for Bush and NJ and NY achieved around 25%. However between them they contributed 1.7 million new bush votes, or nearly 20% of Bush's total vote gain.

5. The remainder of my selection of states is broadly defined as "red states", they averaged 20% in terms of voting gain for bush. Notably both Kansas and Utah achieved % gains for bush below the national average. I am guessing here but I would have thought both states were "moral issue" based voter heavy.

DISTRIBUTION OF THE VOTES

6. In sheer numeric terms Bush gained far and away the most votes in Texas and Florida, 900k and 700k respectively.

7. 60% of all Bushes new votes, 5.2 million votes, were gained in just 11 states…FL, TX. NY, OH, PA, GA, MI, NJ, TN, NC, IL

8. Add in another 8 states and you get to 82% of all bush's new votes or 7.1 million… the states are WI MN IND AL OK KY AZ LOU & MD

9. Put another way 7.1 million votes or 82% of bushes gain was achieved in states totalling 65% of the popular vote. Within these states he achieved an average vote gain of an astonishing 23%.

10. 92% of the vote gain is found in the 31 states I selected data for.

11. The rate of bush vote growth in the remaining 20 states was just 5% on average.

12. In percentage terms Florida and Georgia (both heavily Diebold equipment using states) were the standouts with 32% gains respectively.

13. In percentage terms five other states showed more than 25% growth in the bush vote, in ascending order they were Arizona, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Tennessee. Of these AZ, NM and OK both recently upgraded their machines to new tech machines. NJ and TN also both use computerised voting machines, albeit older models.

[autorank]

36. What symetry between the initial post and this one.

I hate to even comment. I think this is about all people need to know - the question and the answer. I'm humbled! Thanks for this.

[FogerRox]

39. I got it !!!! I know here the 13 million bush voters came from

The Federation had Capt. Kirk beam them down-----------------


>wink<

[autorank]

44. Damn, you promised you wouldn't tell. And I told you thath I got that

message just for you off of SIRIUS Channel 25, "Garage Underground."

Geez! :spank: you

[TruthIsAll]

40. Al, keep this in mind. Bush had to start from 48-49mm in 2000.

Approximately 1.75 million of his 50.45 million voters from 2000 died.

If you assume a full 100% turnout of the 48.7 million voters still living, then he needed to pick up at least 13.3 million to get to 62mm.

But how many of those 48.7 mm did not vote?

[Ysolde]

41. And I, being from OK,

was concerned about our machines. The voting machines were not new -- we still have our "old" optical scanners (which work great by the way) and I know how they tally those at each precinct (I inadvertantly over-voted for a judge and went through the motions to get it read, kicked out, and allowed to ignore as I really didn't care in this particular case).

My concern came from the centralized server where all the votes are counted. I'm a programmer and there's no way I'd bother with all the local machines (especially the ones we have). I'l go after the single vulnerable piece of software. It'd be waaay too easy to "turn" every random-number of votes from one to another; too easy. And, guess what manufacturer makes our centralized tabulator? ES&S.

And, in our case, not only did it give Bush a whopping number of extra votes (I work with quite a few Bush 2000 voters that went for Kerry in 2004), but it also gave that nutjob, Coburn, a Senate seat by a landslide when EVERYTHING pointed to a close election won by Carson (who was endorsed by our local Bush-loving Republican paper).

So, TIA is right and so are the other eloquent people here. Now, how do we get it out there? The corporate media isn't going to publicize this and our national Dems aren't either, apparently.

[TruthIsAll]

51. Al, you have bush gaining 8.7mm; it was 13mm.

Don't forget he got 50.5mm in 2000.
Say 1.5mm died.
That's 49mm.

He had to pick up 13mm votes.
He's lucky if he got 8mm.
So he ends up with 58mm

There were 21mm new voters.
Kerry got 13mm.

Kerry got 2mm of Nader's 3mm.

Kerry surely got at least 48mm of the 49mm Gore voters.
And he probably picked up 1mm of Bush 2000 voters

Adding: 13+2+48+1= 64mm Kerry votes.
Kerry wins by at least 6mm.

And don't forget the disenfranchised.
Give Kerry 3mm more votes that were never cast.

It should have been:
Kerry 67, Bush 58, Other 1

Kerry: 53.2%
Bush: 46.0%
Other: 0.8%

[bleever]

46. Kick.

[Melissa G]

47. Kickety Kick! n/t

[WeHoldTheseTruths]

48. Kick! n/t

[bleever]

49. Kick, because this is so clear

a horse-milker could understand it.

[kster]

50. kick.nt