OMG! Mitofsky invented reluctant Bush responder scam for Bush Sr. in '92!

[tommcintyre]

<See the end of this first part for verification:>*
-------------------------------------
Part 1:

I posted the following thread:

"ALERT! reluctant Bush responder scam "invented" by Mitofsky in 2000!"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x369999

Actually, it turns out rBr was invented FOR THE FATHER! (George Herbert Walker Bush). <Thanks for catching this mods.>

So, it gets even MORE amazing! Voter's are not only prouder to vote for candidates BOTH to the right AND left of Bushs' running for president; but, apparently, THE TRAIT IS ALSO INHERITED!

Hey, pro-rBr "number crunchers" - WHAT EXACTLY IS THE PROBABILITY OF THAT HAPPENING? CAN "LIGHTENING" STRIKE ONLY TWICE, AND ONLY TO TWO SUCCEEDING GENERATIONS?

Or, should we assume that if Jeb ever runs for President (or GW's daughters), voters who vote for them will be reluctant to admit who they voted for? <It seems we not only need statisticians on the job to figure all this out; but also geneticists?> ;)

So the pertinent information should read (corrections in italics):
"- Buchanan vs. Bush in the 1992 NH primaries: Scenario: Buchanan very close in the early exit polls (6 points), amazingly (and mysteriously), Bush pulls it out big (16 points), and Mitofsky explains (spins?) the early exit poll discrepancies:"

"July 18, 2000 NA (Network America) e-wire
What? Buchanan Bias? What’s that?
http://www.votefraud.org/News/2000/7/071800.html

"Mitofsky’s best guess <hypothesis?> is that Buchanan’s voters were prouder of what they had done and, hence, more prone to respond, than Bush’s were. <THE BIRTH OF rBr!>” <Hmm... so voters BOTH to the left (Kerry) AND right (Buchanan) are prouder of voting for their candidate than for the Bushs'?>"
-------------------------------------
*<Verification here:>
http://www.votefraud.org/Archive/Write/newhampad.htm
"...early media reports stated that Bush and Buchanan were running neck and neck in the 1992 New Hampshire primary..."

<My original source:>
http://www.votefraud.org/News/2000/7/071800.html
"...Six New Hampshire primaries back, Lyndon Johnson had edged out Eugene McCarthy..." <6x4=24, 1992-24=1968.>

=====================================================================
Part 2:

<I discovered some MORE interesting patterns from the link I used to verify. (Note the similar pattern to current times. Mitofsky's "hand" (as the "the fixer") can clearly be seen.):>

http://www.votefraud.org/Archive/Write/newhampad.htm
"...early media reports stated that Bush and Buchanan were running neck and neck in the 1992 New Hampshire primary..."
<snip:>
"Time Magazine Reports NBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN Get Their Exit Polls From Same Company!"
<snip:>
"...while the networks have attempted to convey the impression that they are in hot competition with each other to be first with those *incredible*--and we _do_ mean INCREDIBLE--election projections, they have in fact been receiving polling data from the same source--a company they jointly rely upon! <Except now, they no longer try to hide this fact.> "
<snip:>
"...another AP wire (on file) announced that with 98% of the vote counted by 11:20PM on Iowa Caucus night (Feb. 12, 1996), the counting was suddenly halted! <"Meltdowns, and vote-count-halts has been Mitofsky's typical "modus operandi".> (Bedtime curfew for the folks at VNS?)"
<snip:>
"...by Midnight, Sunday, Feb. 18--six full days after the Iowa Caucuses--VNS and the Republican Party of Iowa had still been apparently unable to count the remaining 2% of the precincts, and were refusing requests for a release of the final results.<Like Mitofsky won't release the necessary exit poll data now?> Incidentally, everyone in Iowa is still waiting for some of the results from Dubuque and Sioux City, two Buchanan strongholds."

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

I tell ya - the more I look into this, the more "dirty" it looks.

:mad:

[Carolab]

1. Yes, "Votescam" details how this has been going on for decades.

Have you read it?

Interesting website they have:

http://www.votescam.com/home1.php

[tommcintyre]

3. I've listened to Victoria Collier's interview, and highly recommend it

http://www.edwardsdavid.com/BushVideos/infidelguy.com_Vote_Scam_a.mp3

Also, read the first eight chapters (three more than at the votescam site) of the book here:
http://www.constitution.org/vote/

[slor]

2. Thanks for posting...will read later. n/t

[kster]

4. This just keeps

getting better and better.

[tommcintyre]

26. Or worse and worse... ;)

[autorank]

5. Is the this the same Mitofsky febble said she works for?

I'm just asking a question here? Is it the same guy?

This is first rate investigation and reporting. Maybe the CNN blog retrievers will read this and show it to their bosses just to make them squirm. They'll never cover this because it's real news and highly relevant.

BTW, someone referenced an election fraud book earlier today/yesterday that covered 1994 and earlier elections. Anyone have the link. Thanks.

First rate stuff Tom!!!

:kick:RECOMMEND:kick:

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[Nothing Without Hope]

6. TruthIsAll needs to see this. Good work! n/t

[tommcintyre]

34. TIA is on the job!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x372040

"The sBr syndrome will also be incorporated in new Psychology
research studies. The affliction was first noticed by
Mitofsky in 1992. He suggested sBr in order to explain the
surprising Bush NH primary win over Buchanan, in which the
final vote count deviated sharply from the exit poll."

Among other posts.

[tommcintyre]

41. More on this from TIA

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x372254
"Does he <Mitofsky> really expect us to believe that only Bush voters are reluctant to be interviewed, which he claimed once before, in 1992 when Bush Sr. defied the exit polls in the NH primary?"

My guess is that he didn't think anyone would "remember" he used it before. If it wasn't for the Internet, and the persistence we have in his forum, he might have got away with it.

[Tigress DEM]

7. rBr OK now I get it.

However, if you look at the fact that many Republicans are there because of the abortion issue and maybe one or two other things, and knowing all the vote fraud and media whoring that was going on before, there may have been people voting for the party because they felt it was the moral thing to do, but just couldn't get, "Yeah, I voted for Bush" out of their mouths for either generation.

Of course, I'm not a statistician. I see the vote fraud in the numbers of uncounted absentee ballots, the misdirection and oppression in Ohio, the broken machines only in DEM precincts, the disenfranchised voters in primarily black democratic areas, and the tendency for every error to move in the favor of Bush and I don't need to worry about the rBr factor.

At a certain level of stink, the election is just crooked, so if the bushits want to explain it away because their people were ashamed that they had voted for Bush and didn't want to be upfront about their part in the mess, well, I can accept that may have happened. Didn't win him the election, but I can buy the concept.

[tommcintyre]

12. For the reasons you give, people would be much less likely to admit Buchana...

voting for Buchanan. Just think about it, Bush Sr. was seen as a moderate, while Buchanan was definitely considered far-right in 1992.

1992

George H. W. Bush:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H_W_Bush
<snip>
"The tail end of the late 1980s recession, that had dogged most of Bush's term in office, was a contributing factor to his defeat in the 1992 Presidential election. Several other factors were key in his defeat, including siding with Congressional Democrats in 1990 to raise taxes despite his famous "Read my lips: No new taxes" pledge not to institute any new taxes. In doing so, Bush alienated many members of his conservative base, losing their support for his re-election."
----------------------
Pat Buchanan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Buchanan
"In 1992, Buchanan unsuccessfully challenged George H. W. Bush for the Republican Party Presidential nomination, garnering some 3 million votes in state primary elections. It is said that Buchanan's strong potential in the primaries pushed Bush to run a more conservative campaign than he had in 1988. <Remember, this is AFTER the primaries.> Buchanan later threw his support behind President Bush, and delivered the controversial keynote address at the 1992 Republican National Convention which has since been dubbed the culture war speech. In it, he strongly attacked the liberalism of Bill Clinton, saying:

The agenda Clinton & Clinton would impose on America--abortion on demand, a litmus test for the Supreme Court, homosexual rights, discrimination against religious schools, women in combat--that's change, all right. But it is not the kind of change America wants. It is not the kind of change America needs. And it is not the kind of change we can tolerate in a nation that we still call God's country."
--------------------

<So which candidate sounds more like G.W. Bush in 2004 - more moderate "Daddy", or "God 'n Country" radical Pat?> ;)

Conclusion: So, using the argument that G.W.'s "far right radicalism" caused the rBr, would've caused a reluctant "Buchanan" responder". NOT a reluctant Bush (Sr.) responder.

So... wad-da-ya think? Sure looks like Mitofsky made it up twice. Did he think he could get away with it since memories are so short?

I hear he's been posting over on Mystery Pollster. Maybe one of us should go over and ask him all about this?

A statistics question: If I did, how long do you think my post would last there? ;)

Would they would be as tolerant of my facts as DU has been of the BULLSH*T both Febble and her "minions" have been trying to pass off here?

I THINK NOT!

<Thanks for your post - you helped me to build and even stronger case against rBr.>

[Peace Patriot]

22. Tigress Dem, see above, "Mitofsky’s best guess...". Part 1, just below...

...July 18, 2000. He was GUESSING then. And he's GUESSING now. And it is utter crap for him to be GUESSING at all at why his exit polls differ from an official tally.

You and I and he can guess up a storm. We can imagine all sorts of scenarios. But do these scenarios add up to SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH numbers to skew a poll? THAT is the question, and in 2004, Mitofsky's "reluctant Bush responder" GUESS has no supporting data.

Further, the Bush regime was in TOTAL CONTROL OF THE GOVERNMENT *and* of the LAPDOG NEWS MONOPOLIES in 2004. What would a Bush voter have to fear by disclosing his/her vote for Bush?

Now think about what a Kerry voter might have to fear. Think, for instance, about those dozen or so Kerry voters in the Baptist Church in Waynesville, NC, who were recently THROWN OUT OF THEIR CHURCH for voting for Kerry! Imagine them on election day at a polling place in their neighborhood near their church. They've heard the preacher's pro-Bush, anti-Kerry sermons. They know they're in the minority. They consult their consciences and decide to vote for Kerry--protected by the secret ballot. Some stranger comes up to them afterwards in a public place and asks them to disclose their vote. They don't know who it might get back to. They belong to a church which is about to boil over with political controversy, not six months later--with serious repercussions to themselves. What are the chances that they are going to answer that pollster?

Is this not a more likely picture of the "reluctant responder" on Nov. 2, 2004? A KERRY VOTER fearing the repercussions from bullying, anti-democratic Bushites?

Now think of this phenomenon (Bushite bullying and intimidation) in Bush strongholds throughout the south, or even in Bush enclaves in the north. Your church, your employer, your husband, your father, the police chief and his bully boys, and the local radio and TV, are pro-Bush (and are NOT shy about it). You disagree. How loud are YOU going to be about it? They arrested people at the Bush rally just for wearing a Kerry t-shirt! You want to lose your job? You want to be anathema in your church? You want to hear "Bush, Bush, Bush" at the dinner table? But you vote the way you want to, then some stranger comes up to you at the poling place and asks you how you voted. What are you going to say?

No matter what may have happened in years past about "reluctant responders," this is a NEW POLITICAL CLIMATE under the Bush regime, a political climate bordering on fascism, in which every day, on every radio station, "liberals" are reviled, and are described very nearly as witches and devils, for their political views. A climate in which a Baptist congregation would dare to expel its oldest and most supportive members (for that's who they were) for voting the wrong way in an election!

So, if you're into creating scenarios, why choose one that presumes no fraud or error in the official tally? Why not choose the quite reasonable opposite that many Kerry voters--especially those in Bush-Republican areas--may well have had good reason not to disclose their vote?

And what do the FACTS support? Where is the data? (Mitofsky won't disclose their raw data...gee, I wonder why. Could it be that no data makes the "spin" part of the Guessing Game a lot easier, and will inevitably produce posts like yours and mine in which we ourselves start GUESSING what might be true, and everybody is playing this game, and it all becomes mushy and anecdotal and fudgeable and more and more spinnable?)

[lala_rawraw]

8. Does anyone

doubt that Bush Sr. set up the Reagan hit?

[Raksha]

9. HUH? There was a crazy punk who took a shot at Reagan.

The name escapes me at the moment, but he was obsessed with the movie "Taxi" and with Jodie Foster. What did he have to do with Bush?

[GuvWurld]

11. John Hinckley Jr.

Hinckley was the man accused in the Reagan assassination attempt. His supposed obsession with Foster was the cover story. The conspiracy theory says that the night before the shooting, Hinckley's brother had dinner with then-VP Bush's son Neil. There were media reports at the time but most have been scrubbed by Winston Smith. More: http://www.hereinreality.com/hinckley.html

[lala_rawraw]

27. Is that a yes?

[GuvWurld]

28. I neither doubt it nor believe it

anything is possible...show me evidence

[Darkhawk32]

10. Didn't Buchanan win NH that year? n/t

[tommcintyre]

13. No. Bush 53.2% - Buchanan 36.5%

http://www.politicallibrary.org/TallState/1992rep.html

[EFerrari]

14. There are no boots tall enough for this stuff. Good job! n/t

[tommcintyre]

16. Yes, it keeps getting deeper and deeper, doesn't it? n/t

[tommcintyre]

15. UPDATE: "Cannonfire" picked up this thread/story. The word IS spreading!

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2005/05/vote-fraud-invention-of-reluctant-bush.html

Thanks for the heads-up autorank.

[Coexist]

17. kick

[EFerrari]

24. Joe's post is very important. I remember back in December,

I think, he was a wee bit dismissive of the whole idea. But this important find seems to have helped him rethink his position. :)

[tommcintyre]

33. I have a feeling, as the reality sinks in, this will turn many opinions nt

[BamaBecky]

18. This is absolutely amazing! Should anyone bother themselves

to send this out to the main stream media? What are the odds that they would ignore this?

:applause: :patriot: :yourock:

[autorank]

25. BamaLeftie, I'd place those odds at, let's say, 100%. Let's do it anyway.

f'em, they need to be punished with the truth now and then.

Keep up the good work down there. I've started a savings fund to make a huge contribution to your gubernatorial campaign whenever you run!

[BamaBecky]

31. Can't do that until folks in these parts get a clue! Folks in these parts

STILL have

W 04

on their cars!

[tommcintyre]

35. Eventually there will be an article/blaster w/this info

This is evidence of the larger "coordinated effort" to now cover-up the 2004 election theft.

I'm putting the pieces together, and we can blast/spread it everywhere.

Meanwhile, please feel free to send this piece of the puzzle to ANYONE you think may help/be interested. I would love to see other bloggers/reporters, etc. pick this up and run with it.

[EFerrari]

19. kick

[mistertrickster]

20. Ya know, the thought just occurred to me--don't the data gatherers

keep track of how many people don't respond?

And if they do, do the number of non-responders tally with the final results?

For instance--let's say a pollster interviews one hundred people. 47 say Kerry, 40 say Bush, 1 says Nader, and 13 don't respond. In this scenario, it's possible but extrememly UNLIKELY that all 13 percent go for Bush giving him an actual lead of 6 points.

However, if exit polls run like this--50 Kerry, 43 Bush, 1 Nader with 6 not responding, it would be an absolute impossibility that the non-responders could put Bush into the lead, because even if ALL the non-responders had voted for Bush, they still wouldn't be enough to put Bush into the lead.

[kster]

21. kick.nt

[Internut]

29. Since the non-response rate in US exit polls is around 50%,

your hypotheticals should be something like:

"a pollster attempts to interview one hundred people, 27 say Kerry, 22 say Bush, 1 says Nader and 50 don't respond". In this case, it takes 6 extra Bush non-responders over Kerry non-responders (28 to 22) to put Bush in the lead.

[chrisclub]

23. Bush ties to Diebold vote counting machines go WAY back. n/t

[autorank]

40. Welcome to DU!!! Glad you've come to Elections Forum

What are the links? Investment, contributions (probably). Those *'s get around, don't they.

Stick around, you'll enjoy it!

:hi:

[autorank]

30. KICK

:kick:

[librechik]

36. Connecticut Primary 88-- the first Bush stolen election

They've been improving their technique ever since.

[autorank]

37. Now that's very interesting. Anything more you can share?

Thanks.

[librechik]

38. just a stupid rumor I heard somewhere in these threads

Connecticut 88 (as I recall) was the first state to institute DREs--with 41's help--and strangely, he won even though he did miserably in the polls.

I looked around for a link; couldn't find. Just put it down as tinfoil hat territory.

[autorank]

39. Well, it's a lead. I'll ask around and see. Thanks!!!

[tommcintyre]

42. I'll investigate it, and see what I can find n/t

[tommcintyre]

43. Interesting, I just remembered someone PM'd me about the 1988 NH primary.

"Check out the 1988 NH primary. Bush Sr. was far behind Dole in the final polls He needed to win it or he was done. He got John Sununu (Gov., computer expert) to rig it for him. That was a precursor
for all that has happened since."

I'll look into both NH and CT.

[tommcintyre]

44. And now here's a third one: "since at least 1988"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x372464#372805

[tommcintyre]

45. Another PM to me: Bush vs McCain 2000 SC primary

>Something just don't add up with McCain
>>vs Bush in 2000,McCain kicked Bushes ass in New Hampshire
>>primaries by 18 points,McCain was polled at that time to be
>>the most popular candidate nationwide.
>>
>>We just had a recount in 2004 in New Hampshire and
>everything
>>added up,exit polls-vote count, OK every thing makes sense
>so
>>far,they move on to Delaware which is DRE in 2000 and bush
>pulls out a victory,then on to South Carolina where McCain has
>a 12 point
>>lead going in ,Bush again pulls out a victory,21 of the 45
>>counties use electronic voting machines.
>>
>>A story about the South Carolina primaries reads,
>>
>>The ease of Bush's victory came as a surprise to many.
>Recent
>>polls had projected a dead heat. Even better news for Bush
>was
>>who voted for him. He won conservative voters and those from
>>the religious right, as he needed to, but he also made hay
>>elsewhere.
>>
>> GOP Delegate Count:
>>George W. Bush's South Carolina victory earned him the
>state's
>>19 at-large delegates with 18 others to be allocated
>according
>>to the winner of each congressional district. He now has 46
>of
>>the 1,034 delegates needed to win the Republican nomination;
>>John McCain has 11.
>>He won 45 percent of the veterans' vote to McCain's 49
>>percent, despite the latter's powerful history of military
>>service. And while McCain won 54 percent of voters who had
>>never participated in a Republican primary, Bush won 40
>>percent of them - no mean feat indicating that McCain isn't
>>the only candidate who can bring in new voters.
>>
>>I don't know if the links will work but I would be happy to
>>cut and paste the stories if they don't
>>
>>
>>http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/30 /... /
>>
>>http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/02/07 /...
>>
>>
>>http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/02/05 /...
>>
>>
>>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/02/17/politics/main ...
>>
>>http://www.mydd.com/story/2004/12/9/173353/980
>>
>>http://www.votersunite.org/info/content/mess-up_071904 ....
>>
>>
>>This is from searching around I don't know how to verify
>this,
>>but it sure looks suspicious to me,that McCain may have lost
>>electronically the same way Gore and Kerry did.

<My response:>
Thanks for the effort. They (media) tried to explain away Bushs, SC victory as due to dirty push polling (fathered a black child w/a prostitute, etc); but, in hindsight, was that just a cover for fraud - like rBr? A key to the answer would be op polls done AFTER the primary. They tried to explain away the ones before the primary with the last-minute push polling.

[Febble]

46. Glad you like it, Tom!

[kster]

47. kick.nt