Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

TruthIsAll Interview--Kerry Won!!! Tool for Everyone to Prove It-"Scoop"

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 » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-26-05 02:20 PM
Original message
TruthIsAll Interview--Kerry Won!!! Tool for Everyone to Prove It-"Scoop"
Edited on Mon Dec-26-05 02:52 PM by autorank
What more could you ask for on Christmas and the start of Hanukah. Well, its all here: the paper, the links, and the free Excel simulations. Happy Holidays!!!



Kerry Won!!! Statistical Tools Everyone Can Use
Plus an interview with TruthIsAll


http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0512/S00242.htm
(Note to mods: Permission to quote extensively granted by author)

The 2004 Election Controversy will not stop. Statistical analysis of polls is now more accessible with free interactive Excel-based election models available on the Internet. Plus an interview with TruthIsAll.

Special for Scoop Independent Media
from Washington DC
Michael Collins
Dec. 21, 2005

USEFUL RELATED LINKS:
The Law of Large Numbers & Central Limit Theorem: A Polling Simulation
http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllPollin...
Excel Polling Simulation Model
2004 Election Model Projection; Exit Poll Collection; Excel Interactive Election Simulation; Other links.


The Kerry concession speech on November 3, 2004 marked the beginning, not the end of the controversy over the 2004 election. Just hours before the speech, Vice Presidential Candidate John Edwards emerged and said that, John Kerry and I made a promise to the American people that in this election every vote would count and every vote will be counted."

Democrats were in a state of shock. 2004 was a banner year for new registrations, party financial support, and activism. Reported new registrations favored Democrats all over the country. Democrats were well ahead of Republicans in new registrations in Ohio. South Florida, the scene of the crime in 2000, saw major Democratic efforts and a lackluster Republican response.

Democrats matched and exceeded Republicans in funds raised. For the first time, the internet proved to be a highly potent form of fund raising. The Democrats collected $10 million a month for the Kerry Campaign on the Internet alone. Other groups supporting the Democrats raised substantial funds. MoveOn.Org and New Democratic Network ran parallel campaign commercials and provided other support with the $25 million they raised during the election cycle.

Activism was at an all time high. People who had never worked in elections volunteered in large numbers and local Democratic parties throughout the country saw a surge in citizen participation.
While Kerry may have conceded the election at 2:14 p.m., Nov. 3, a large portion of the population failed to accept the final results. They knew something was wrong. As one Virginia activist said, This is simply not possible, the national results or here in Virginia.

<snip>
INTERVIEW WITH TruthIsAll

Why all this energy devoted to the 2004 election?

I was appalled when the election was stolen from Gore in 2000. I had posted daily projections of my Election Model on DU in the four months leading up to the election. The projections were based on state and national polls. The final national model had Kerry 51.6 % of the two-party vote; the state model 51.8 %. The state model included a Monte Carlo simulation with a Kerry expected total of 337 electoral votes.

The initial exit polls and the Iowa Election Markets showed that Kerry was a 3% winner. When Bush came from nowhere after 9 p.m. to win, I had this feeling of Dj vu. So I decided to confirm the doubts using mathematical probability analysis, based on the
preliminary exit poll data downloaded by Jonathan Simon.

<snip>

Anything youd like to say in closing?

Ill keep posting as long as I have something to say. If my work has in some small measure helped to raise awareness, then its all been worth it.

The miracle of timing that made the full set of national exit polls available to the world and the election fraud movement.

11/02/04

11:00 p.m. EM Server goes down. Exit Polls available on the Internet.

11/04/04

12:25 a.m. Final National Exit Poll captured by Jonathan Simon.
3047 Respondents: Kerry 51% - Bush 48%

1:33 a.m. Edison Mitofsky Servers come back online effectively ending
Internet access to the National Exit Polls.

2:30* a.m. Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards addresses the crowd and
and nation promising to fight for every vote. (time approximate)

1:25 p.m. National Exit Poll revised by EM to take final election results into
account 13,660 respondents: Kerry 48% - Bush 51%

2:14 p.m. Kerry concedes the election to Bush.

This remarkable sequence of events was not the beginning of the end but rather the end of the beginning. The remarkable intensity of research, analysis, and debate that energizes the modern day election fraud movement was born crying foul!


FROM:

The Law of Large Numbers & Central Limit Theorem: A Polling Simulation

by TruthIsAll

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllPollin...


It's for those who say: "Math was my worst subject in high school".
If you've ever placed a bet at the casino or race track,
or played the lottery, you already know the basics.
It's about probability.
It's about common sense.
It's not all that complicated.

It's for individuals who have taken algebra, probability and statistics and want to see how they apply to election polling.

It's for graduates with degrees in mathematics, political science, an MBA, etc. who may or may not be familiar with simulation concepts. Simulation is a powerful tool for analyzing uncertainty- be it coin flipping or election polling.

It's for Excel spreadsheet users who enjoy creating math models.

It's for writers, blogs and politicians who seek the truth:
Robert Koehler, Brad from BradBlog, John Conyers, Barbara Boxer, Mark Miller, Fitrakis, Wasserman, USCV, Dopp, Freeman, Baiman, Simon, Alistair Thompson, Krugman, Keith Olberman, Mike Malloy, Randi Rhodes,Stephanie Miller, etc.

It's for Netizens who frequent Discussion Forums.

It's for those in the Media who are still waiting for editor approval to discuss documented incidents of vote spoilage, vote switching and vote suppression in recent elections and which are confirmed by impossible pre-election and exit poll deviations from the recorded vote.

It's for naysayers who promote faith-based hypotheticals in their unrelenting attempts to debunk the accuracy of the pre-election and exit polls.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Angry Girl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-26-05 02:23 PM
Response to Original message
1. Great stuff! Thanks! KnR big time!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NanceGreggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-26-05 02:25 PM
Response to Original message
2. Kicked and Nominated!
Thanks for the info ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rainscents Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-26-05 02:26 PM
Response to Original message
3. Thanks for the link! Great news!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benburch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-26-05 02:29 PM
Response to Original message
4. Truth Is All needs to be re-instated on DU.
I think he has been banned long enough to make up for whatever it was that he did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndyOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-26-05 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. I agree -
I think we should encourage him to use the "ignore" function often for the sake of his sanity and for the sake of remaining on DU...

By the way - I heard you on with Thom this morning - Good job!

And, where is Guy James these days? Having him stand in for Jerry Springer instead of that god-awful Jay Marvin would be a relief!

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-26-05 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #5
17. Whoa Indy OP... Hartmann covered this in the AM???
That's entirely too cool. Of course, he is a big proponent of using various means to keep elections honest. I heard him in Oregon at the Summit on Exit Polls, he's quite erudite. Here's a snip from that:

Verifying Election Results Panel
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0510/S00082.htm

Thom Hartmann presented a brief but persuasive review of the use of exit polls in election monitoring. He reviewed the process begun in Serbia and successfully carried forward to the nations of Georgia, and the Ukraine. Voting rights activists formed a core group of election specialists who publicized the effort and tracked exit polls carefully. At the exact point of the final exit poll, a decision was made to immediately challenge the election if the poll indicated election fraud or stand down if the election seemed free and fair. Hartmann transitioned to the conduct of exit polls in the U.S. These had become increasingly more accurate until the 2004 election. The national exit polls showed a Kerry victory (until the very last national poll was adjusted and coincided with the actual results). The state exit polls, conducted by the same poll takers, were not adjusted and also showed a clear Kerry victory. Why didnt Americans react the same way the Ukrainians did, Hartmann asked? His point was particularly telling since the margin of difference between Ukraine exit polls and US exits was only about 1%. The reaction by the voters was entirely different. The Ukraine had a revote and selected a different candidate for President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndyOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-26-05 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. AR - no, Thom wasn't discussing election fraud this morning -
BenBurch was on Thom's show briefly this morning, making the point that the extreme right uses the term 'liberal' to beat up on people who are really centrist. I was just commenting to Ben that he was good on Thom's show this morning.

Sorry to lead you on...

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-26-05 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Don't be sorry, just call Tomm...;)
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goclark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-26-05 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. I miss TRUTH IS AL L ! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zann725 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #8
117. Me too! His statistical analyses and "energy" always give me hope
...and make LOGICAL sense out of the gobbledy-gook of the: "too bad Kerry lost"...and "if only there were A 'smoking gun' to prove JK did win."

Yet Truth Is All shows us again and again there is not ONE, but MANY 'smoking guns' statistically proving Kerry DID win. Question IS, why are NONE of them being used by JK or the Dems to take back the election and this country?

I too want to see more "Truth Is All" here. (I didn't know he was banned?) If so, is not a Pardon due soon?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
juajen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-26-05 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #4
21. I would agree, I think, but I don't know what he did
Would someone please enlighten me?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-27-05 08:47 AM
Response to Reply #21
43. I missed all of it, too. I have no idea what happened. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zann725 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-03-06 01:08 AM
Response to Reply #21
122. Maybe he told the Truth too much?
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bushy Being Born Donating Member (267 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-26-05 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #4
24. I recognize that nick
I've been lurking and reading posts here for a long time, and now that you mention it I remember reading a fair share of TIA posts, which I wouldn't if they weren't worthy of being remembered. They were on this subject? I'll do a search as soon as I get my donor star! ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-27-05 06:06 AM
Response to Reply #4
41. Agreeing also-- one of the shining lights of DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-26-05 02:33 PM
Response to Original message
6. K&R. Happy New Year, TIA, and thank you!!!
Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YourBrother Donating Member (159 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-26-05 02:35 PM
Response to Original message
7. nice work bro
they will never admit it

so the world needs to be shown

both that this can't happen again, and what america does to people who would hoodwink a nation for their own financial and psychopathic ends

make an example of them, and their paymasters
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-26-05 02:40 PM
Response to Original message
9. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, TIA and autorank,
and great thanks, many times over, for all your work.

I thought I was going nuts the evening of the election. Thank God I found DU, and the great work of the 4ERD forum, spearheaded by the incomparable TruthIsAll.

God bless us. Every one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Botany Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-26-05 02:51 PM
Response to Original message
10. good to see T.I.A. back!
he might be a curmudgeon but he is our curmudgeon.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oceansaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-26-05 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
11. thanks...n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-26-05 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Welcome! Lot's of good stuff to use there.
With "the obvious becoming OBVIOUS" to the wider public, the theft of 2004 (and 2002 GA & 2000) becomes highly relevant.

After all, we're talking about LEGITIMACY!!!

Why should the people wait for the lazy CM to report this?

They can just download the Excel program and prove it to themselves.

Let's get CM off it's but so AR/MC can take a long vacation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catamount Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-26-05 03:00 PM
Response to Original message
12. Thank you for validating my signature.....
Only yesterday someone here told me to get over it....but I won't or rather, I can't do it until this mess has been cleaned up....one day!
Happy New Year!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-26-05 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. * Supporters need to "get out of it", the WH that is. Not LEGITIMATE
Why do so many people oppose * without so much as a real peep from the craven CM (corporate media)?

Because THEY KNOW HE SHOULDN'T BE THERE.

I dare CM, do a poll with just two questions:

1) Who do you think really won the 2004 election? Kerry - Bush

2) Do you think Bush and all the Neocons should be removed from power immediately? Yes No

It would be about 60% - 40% on the first question and an easy 65% - 35% on the second (we'd pick up votes from people who think Bush won but just want him out).

Come on CM, take up the DU challenge--run this poll! NOW
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fooj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-26-05 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
14. I miss you, TIA!!!
Edited on Mon Dec-26-05 03:05 PM by fooj
:hi:

Happy New Year!
Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-26-05 03:06 PM
Response to Original message
16. Thanks Autorank, TIA and others who keep reminding us.
We have to hope one day soon more will come out...a whistle blower who helped "fix" two elections will suddenly "see the light."

Until then keeping the truth out there is so important. One day, the "truth will out."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-26-05 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. KoKo01 It will, indeed. Mean time, we'll stay in the game. Make it ..
hard for them to pull their BS.

"Comity" (getting over it) is a euphemism for not having the guts to empty the dug-out when a team member has been assaulted." Understandinglife!

It will out indeed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
radio4progressives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-26-05 05:41 PM
Response to Original message
22. K&R
:kick: :hi: :applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-26-05 05:58 PM
Response to Original message
23. Hi Autorank...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-26-05 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. Seasons Greetings althecat.
;)Vox populi, Vox dei ;)

Thanks for publishing this one! and all the others!

"Scoop" Independent Media helps keep the election integrity/fraud movement
vibrant!

:yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-26-05 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #23
33. Well effen done!
Thank you. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-26-05 07:19 PM
Response to Original message
26. K&R. Does Kerry know all this? Do his aides?
Edited on Mon Dec-26-05 07:44 PM by robbedvoter


here's a question: how do we get the DU-ers who still wonder "Why Kerry lost" to touch this thread?
I keep posting the link, but man, they stir clear of it as if it was a black helicopters conspiracy theory or something (Thanks, John)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-26-05 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. They are in a quickly shrinking minority.
Let them be and go for the larger audience. Share the link outside of DU.

Anyone I talk to is READY TO BELIEVE that * stole the election. The numbers
stuff really does the trick.

The Excel program is perfect for business and math types.

Keep up the good work and don't worry about naysayers.

It's our time now and in the future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NVMojo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-26-05 07:24 PM
Response to Original message
27. Thanks, Autorank! I have always believed he should have won Nevada
I believe the Nevada election was stolen. Why else would the Secretary of State have made sure to raise the cost of public requests for voter info so high that no one could afford to research it? He did this just before the Nov. 2004 election. Pre-coverup ...I'm sure there's more dirt in other states too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-26-05 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #27
31. Probably
Shows "paper receipts" don't do the trick. Full access to paper ballots by the public, not a specially ordered recount, is vital.

Check these out.

http://www.votersunite.org/electionproblems.asp?sort=da...

http://vote2004.eriposte.com/swingstates/nevada.htm#NEV...

Happy Holidays!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nicknameless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-26-05 08:20 PM
Response to Original message
28. Yep, still missing TIA
Thanks, autorank

K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Melissa G Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-26-05 08:36 PM
Response to Original message
29. Floaty Hearts to TIA and Althecat!!!
Thanks for the post Auto!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-26-05 10:03 PM
Response to Original message
32. Thank you, TIA. I'm only number 36
but you are our #1

:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stellanoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-26-05 10:32 PM
Response to Original message
34. I will forever love
TIA, and he will forever be an all american hero in my smallish book.

And he will more than likely always refer to me as

"SSTTTEEEELLLLLLAAAAAAA !!!!!!!!!!!!!. . ."

the statistically challenged (though entirely lovable) cyber ninnie.

:hiya:

send mucho kisses
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-26-05 11:03 PM
Response to Original message
35. kicking for the truth-please let '06 be the year our nations wakes up!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
farmbo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-26-05 11:30 PM
Response to Original message
36. 3047 responses at 12:25 AM, then 13,660 in final tally the next day...
Edited on Mon Dec-26-05 11:31 PM by farmbo
It appears that the size of the sample WAS sufficient to swing the vote to Bush.

TIA once posited that the six point swing occurred with only some 600 votes in the early morning of Nov 3: a red flag for sure.

Now it appears that there were over 10,000 votes blended into to the sample after 12:25 AM. If they were accurate, this is more than enough votes to logically throw off the early numbers.

Maybe the exit polls were not out of line.

:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chi Donating Member (921 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-27-05 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #36
48. I believe thats 13047
13047
Kerry 51% = 6654
Bush 48% = 6263

13660
Kerry 48% = 6557
Bush 51% = 6967

Last 613 Bush got 704
Kerry got -97

Not that those were actual poll respondents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-27-05 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #36
49. ."3047" should be "13047". That's my typo.
13047 has always been the figure for the last exit poll.

Question answered.

The election was stolen, get used to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-27-05 01:12 AM
Response to Original message
37.  40th recommendation.
Edited on Tue Dec-27-05 01:14 AM by Kurovski

Election fraud: See it, hear it, speak it...Everyday, all day, 24/7.

Good work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texpatriot2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-27-05 01:39 AM
Response to Original message
38. Incredible! Thanks Autorank nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-27-05 02:06 AM
Response to Original message
39. Thanks for everyone who
has worked on this issue. I really respect, admire and appreciate all your work. :hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mogster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-27-05 05:34 AM
Response to Original message
40. Kick!
Great stuff! :bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-27-05 07:01 AM
Response to Original message
42. Excellent compilation.
It's really a punch in the face. A bittersweet read.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-27-05 09:13 AM
Response to Original message
44. K & R. Can anyone address Farmbo's points above?
Our numbers have to be unimpeachable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-27-05 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #44
50. Addressed, it was a typo, mine--13047.is the correct, well known, figure.
Of course if Frambo wanted to do a simple search, he could have found that rather than challenge the whole concept on the basis of one number string.

These polls were never supposed to be seen by us. Only the down time of the exit polling company server allowed this. It's a freak of technology that we even have the numbers.

The polling company and the networks have been asked to open up their data on the exit polls to further validate them and help understand better if/how fraud took place. They have flatly refused since late November. That should tell you something. They lose nothing by doing this and I'm left to assume, as are others, that the only reason they don't release the information is to prop up *'s legitimacy since a release would show just how rotten the election was.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-27-05 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. Thanks. For everything. Someday your hard work - and truth will prevail.
Private companies running our elections - the voting, the counting, the exit polling. We must expose this. TIA rules.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-27-05 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #52
53. You're welcome and we are and will continue to expose it.
The VA Democrats, my party, just got totally hosed in a recount. Seems that there were no ballots to rcount in the touch screen areas (Scty of State doesn't see need for paper) and the atavistici court judges running the recount refused to rerun the optiscan ballots, let alone have them hand counted.

Keep in mind Warner, D is Gov and the Democrats are strong here. They didn't now what hit them and a Republican (Robertson protege) is not Attorney General.

They'll listen next time, wish they had this time.

You keep up the good work too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-27-05 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #50
54. Precisely the problem
Until the polling companies open up their data, all we have is speculation, not proof.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-27-05 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #54
56. Admit it Nederland, you love Bush. You always trash exit poll evidence.
Edited on Tue Dec-27-05 09:36 PM by autorank
It doesn't get any better than these exit polls. These are used around the world to spot fraud. Lesser deviations have toppled governments. Republicans like Sen. Lugar and Democrats like Pres. Carter endorse exit polls. Our polling is superior. It's gone on longer. It produced what I believe to be and what the evidence shows is a highly reliable response.

Are the polls wrong or was the vote count crooked. Take a position or don't show up naysaying exit poll evidence whenever it shows up. It's just too predictable.

There ought to be a forum for naysayers to kvetch about exit poll evidence. Then you could do it with impunity. But not here.

This is excellent evidence, it's a vote with a paper trail, unlike any machine voting area of the country in 2004. The paper trail can be accessed now. It still exists.

Will you call for Mitofsky and the network consortium to release the polling data?

This would validate the polls further and allow for an even stronger case for election fraud.

I look forward to your answer in the spirit of intellectual honesty. Disagree all you want but demand that the evidence be produced.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #56
61. Fair Enough
I appreciate your willingness to discuss things rationally. It's more than I ever got from TIA.

To answer your question, I would point to a post that I made on November 15th, 2004. In it I specifically say that you need the raw polling data from Mitofsky before you can prove anything. I said it over a year ago and I'll continue to say it now: without the raw polling data you cannot prove anything because without it you cannot demonstrate that the exit poll samples are representative.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

So please, from now on refrain from the insinuation that I've resisted the idea that Mitofsky should release all of his data. Quite the opposite is true: I've always pressed for that exact release. Our democracy deserves the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #61
66. This is what's called "splitting"...now way.
"I appreciate your willingness to discuss things rationally. It's more than I ever got from TIA."

I saw TIA's points as eminently rational and without effective refutation here or elsewhere. Why else would he be so viciously attacked (I'm not talking about you) when he got hot.

In any event, "splitting" will not occur.

Glad you want a release, now send a letter or two. That would help.

See my response to the colloquy below on what I mean by rationality and, if you want, try to defend a Bush win.

As to your comment "without the raw polling data you cannot prove anything because without it you cannot demonstrate that the exit poll samples are representative." I don't agree but since you do, I would think that you'd simply refrain from commenting on the polls since, by your definition, you have no basis for judging them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #66
67. One simple question
Please explain how you can prove that exit poll samples are representative without the raw data.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #67
70. One word: Mitofsky
Edited on Wed Dec-28-05 08:24 PM by autorank
Mitofsky of the NEPs and Freeman of UPENN (and election fraud advocate) debated in October of this year. Had that debate not taken place or had Mitofsky arrived and taken your position, there would have been no debate. There was and it's quite interesting. You're begging the question, a position that the author of the exit polls does not take. Arguing that the material should be released as final proof of validity does not argue against sufficient proof, which has been supplied and also debated.

Your position, unlike Mitofsky's, is like a doctor who refuses to diagnose or treat a patient because she cannot get a full DNA reading. You can make inferences from material that is sufficient for inferences. The NEP and State Exit Poll information released so far allows for strong inference, even according to the people who ran the polls. They're free to release the information and settle this question, presuming the information has some audit trail. But to say that there can be no debate when many including the author of the polls is willing to debate it is not persuasive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #70
71. You are confused
Mitofsky has never claimed that his exit polls were representative.

The fact is he has always claimed that his exit poll samples over sampled Kerry voters due to the reluctant Bush responders. Now I'm sure you've heard of the reluctant Bush responder hypothesis, haven't you? :)

So please stop trying to avoid the question and give me an answer: explain how you can prove that exit poll samples are representative without the raw data.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #71
72. It's nice to be nice, I like everybody.
Mitofsky debated the validity of the NEPs and State Exit Polls without walking in and saying, "You have no raw data, therefore there is no debate." That was my point. No avoidance, no splitting.

Now, how about a little math. See what this gets you.

1- How many votes (BV) did Bush get in 2000?

2- Calculate the maximum number (BM = BV - 1.75) of Bush 2000 voters who
could have voted in 2004, after subtracting the approximate 1.75mm who died
(according to the 0.87% U.S. death rate).

3- What was the total 2004 vote count (V)?

4. Calculate the maximum Bush 2000 voter share (BM/V) of the 2004 vote.

5. What was the Bush 2000 voter share (BP/V) of the 2004 vote, according to
the Final National Exit Poll (NEP)?

6. What was the Bush/Kerry % in the nEP at 1:25pm on Nov.3?

7. Was the NEP matched to the recorded vote? Yes or No.

8. What would have been the NEP result if the calculated weighting (BM/V) had been used instead of the impossible NEP weighting (BP/V)?

Shouldn't take long. Then we can resort to numbers not rhetoric.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #72
79. You are avoiding the question
Edited on Thu Dec-29-05 11:28 AM by Nederland
Mitofsky responded the way he did because Freeman's argument is different from TIA's. Freeman argues that the WPE revealed in the data Mitofsky did release could not be adequately explained by the reluctant Bush responder hypothesis. If Mitofsky had been debating TIA, his response would have been different.

Regardless, I am asking a mathematical and statistical question which has nothing to do with the specifics of the 2004 election. The question, which I ask again for the third time, is this: how can you prove that exit poll samples are representative without the raw data?

Stop avoiding the question and give me an answer, because, quite frankly this is the root cause of our disagreement. Your series of steps and equations in the post above, for example, require inputs that can only come from exit poll data, data which is only valid if the exit poll samples were representative. Logically, therefore, it makes sense to establish the validity of of the exit poll data before launching into an exercise which makes use of that data. So once again, I beg you, just answer the question:

How can you prove that exit poll samples are representative without the raw data?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #79
82. Give it up, you're a broken record.
Answer the math questions. There is sufficient information to prove problems with 2004 from this. The raw data would reinforce that but your a one trick pony at this point.

You claim to have some statistical or math acumen. Show it, do the work or admit that your just engaged in a circular loop of internalized mental self-stimulation.

Right now you have an "Incomplete" which will turn into an "F" if your answers are not handed in by the end of the day.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #82
88. Let's make a deal
Edited on Thu Dec-29-05 03:44 PM by Nederland
I will answer the math questions after you answer my question. Fair enough?

BTW, your step #2 is horrible flawed, 1.75 million is not the correct number.

Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/deaths.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #88
93. Wrong, your figure is from 2003.
Edited on Thu Dec-29-05 08:02 PM by autorank
According to his 2003 data, the annual rate is 0.83% instead of 0.87%

The difference is an inconsequential 80,000.

If 80,000 fewer Bush voters died, SO DID 80,000 FEWER GORE VOTERS!! See, it balances out

BUT YOU are WRONG

The 2000 death rate figure is the appropriate one. It was 0.87%. Your figure is from 2003, correct for that year but not relevant for 2000. We're talking about figures from the 2000 election (unless there was a big one in 2003 you can tell us about).


http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005131.html

-----------------------
Now it's past the end of the day and you didn't turn in your work. I'm going to give you an extra 4 hours and 48 minutes, midnight tonight, to ACTUALLY RUN SOME NUMBERS AS IN THE ONES YOU WERE COMPLAINING ABOUT. You did find the the 0.04% death rate correction and that's why you get the time. You could have just looked that up so you still have to show us you can do math.

With regard to your question, 95% confidence interval, 1% margin of error ... listed on the polls. Go gripe at Mitofsky or the other pollsters but no more of these quibbles.

Question answered now get to work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #93
95. You completely missed the point
Your figure of 0.87% is for the total population. The figure for elibible voters (people over 18) is higher.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #95
96. ROFL
Edited on Thu Dec-29-05 09:24 PM by autorank
First of all, we multiply 0.87% by the Bush 2000 voters, NOT the whole population to determine how many died. Second of all, if it IS higher than 0.87%, then MORE THAN 1.75 BUSH VOTERS MILLION DIED:

-->which means that the corresponding Bush percentage weighting of the 2004 vote is even lower than the Bush maximum of 39.8%;

-->which means that KERRY WON by an even bigger margin since the additional new voters had to make up the difference...AND KERRY WON BY 57% OF THE NEW VOTERS.

NEDERLAND, GO TO YOUR ROOM.
AND DON'T COME OUT UNTIL YOU COMPLETE THAT TEST.
REMEMBER THE TEST?

YOU HAVE 3 HOURS...VITE, VITE

Also read and memorize the bold section of Post 94.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-30-05 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #96
105. You still don't understand
Edited on Fri Dec-30-05 11:46 AM by Nederland
And I guess you never will. The point is not that the number you got for the number of Bush voters that died was too small, the point is that you got it wrong. If you can't even correctly calculate something as simple as how many Bush voters died, how in the world do you think you can demonstrate the much more complicated problem of voter fraud? That fact that you have been pushing this argument for months now and it never even occurred to you that you needed to look at the death rate for people over 18 speaks volumes about your competence.

The point is that you guys don't know how to correctly create formulas and gather correct information. You make mistakes left and right and when people point them out to you you resort to ridicule because the facts are against you. Just give it up autorank and go back to the Election Reform forum where everyone loves you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-30-05 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #105
108. The Sorrow and the Pity
I'd like to collaborate with you but I'm not a collaborator.

You've gotten enough free consultation and done nothing with it.

You didn't hand in your work, you apparently cannot or will not do the math...simple request and you flub it.

Good luck and good bye.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-30-05 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #105
112. Nederland, we hardly knew ye
Pleased to make your virtual acquaintance. I started wrangling with TIA after your epic struggles had apparently subsided (or conceivably had moved to other places). You sure wrote some great posts.

Alas, I have to correct you. It is not so much the case that everyone over in Election Reform loves -- well, let's leave people out of it -- the arguments presented in the OP and the arguments downthread in support of the OP. Of course, some people don't believe in their guts that it is possible to support election reform without believing TIA. Sigh. I try not to pick that fight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-30-05 12:40 AM
Response to Reply #88
97. NEDERLAND, you get an "F"--No work handed in. Plus fun DU History
Well, I was busy and you had an extra 30 minutes to cmplete your task. You said you'd do it. I answered the death rate question more than adequately, even gave you the benefit of the doubt there for a bit until I found out you were using 2003 death rate data. Bad form, easy find.

So, regretably, you wil have to repeat the course in summer school because you get an:

F for attending math and providing none.

Now for some history. I'm sure you remember this.

TruthIsAll Donating Member Sat Mar-12-05 11:52 AM
Original message
THIS EXIT POLL SIMULATION TEST BLOWS AWAY THE NEDERLAND "PROOF"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Edited on Sat Mar-12-05 12:51 PM by TruthIsAll

Let's simulate the NEP.

1) Assume our sample design consists of 131 precincts, and a
total 13047 respondents, just like the preliminary exit poll,
weighted for Kerry to win 51.75% share of the two-party vote.

2) Assume a precinct MOE of 10%, and calculate random numbers
within a +/- 10% range of the precinct result.

3) Sum up all the votes and calculate the percentages for
each of the four simulation trials.

4) Compare the average of the four trials to the exit poll.
Kerry's 51.65% average compares very nicely to the 51.75%
prelim. exit poll.

We have just illustrated the law of large numbers. It
disproves the argument that the high individual precinct MOE
(10%) invalidates the use of the 1% MOE for the complete 13047
sample-size preliminary National Exit Poll.

SAMPLING ERRORS IN INDIVIDUAL PRECINCTS ARE TO BE EXPECTED.
THEY ARE "AVERAGED OUT" IN THE TOTAL SAMPLE.

THE LAW OF LARGE NUMBERS AND THE CENTRAL LIMIT THEOREM.

The simulation result graphically illustrates the concept:
The average of the simulation trials falls within a hair of
the exit poll.


Exit Poll---------Dem---| Rep
Actual-----------51.75% | 48.25%

Random Test1 | 51.57% | 48.84%
Random Test2 | 51.81% | 48.60%
Random Test3 | 52.03% | 48.37%
Random Test4 | 51.20% | 49.21%
Average--------| 51.65% | 48.75%


(see post for full chart)

and this...

TruthIsAll Fri Mar-11-05 09:32 PM
Original message
Nederland now agrees: The Recorded votes and Final Exit poll are bogus.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Edited on Fri Mar-11-05 10:29 PM by TruthIsAll

"Same problem"
Posted by Nederland


I = R + S + F

R is known
S is known
I is unknown
F is unknown

You are therefore left with an unsolvable equation because you need (at least) two equations to resolve two unknowns.
..............................................................

Nederland, thanks for your post regarding the equation:
I = R + S + F.

where:
I = intended vote
R = recorded vote
S = spoiled vote factor
F = fraud factor

You have just proven that:
1) the Recorded vote is wrong
and
2) the Final exit poll which matches to the Recorded vote is wrong.

Here is the proof:

Since, you state that R and S are known,
then R > 0 and S > 0,
and we must have
I > R and I - R > 0

Therefore,
the Intended vote (I) is greater than the Recorded vote (R).

It logically follows that the Recorded vote must be bogus, as it does not match the Intent of ALL of the voters.

And you didn't need to solve for the two unknowns to see that.

Talinkg it a step further, Mitofsky's FINAL exit poll must also be bogus, since he adjusts the Preliminary Exit poll weights in order to match the (incorrect) Recorded vote.

Nederland, you are half way there.
Thanks for proving my point.

The final unknown is the Fraud. If the preliminary exit poll was essentially correct, then we can approximate F, although we would still need to add another unknown the Disenfranchisement (D) factor, which is not picked up in the preliminary or final exit poll.

Now, if you will accept that programmed fraud did occur when the touchscreens switched Kerry votes to Bush (in 99% of these documented "glitches"), you will finally reach the promised land of the TRUTH.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-30-05 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #97
103. Autorank, you also get an "F"--No work handed in
Edited on Fri Dec-30-05 11:31 AM by Nederland
Now answer my question. Perhaps you're just scared to admit that you don't know the answer...

What so funny about you and TIA is your grand delusion of influence. Don't you realize that outside of DU, nobody agrees with you? Shit, even that well known right wing blog DailyKos :eyes: makes fun of you guys. Just give it up. Getting the arithmatic right when you plug bad numbers into bad formulas proves absolutely nothing, but you guys apparently will never understand that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-30-05 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #103
109. My sig line pic has inspired you. Just checking in but will respond
a bit later. Ouch, develop some degree of humor Nederland. btw, the world outside of DU does not consist of DKOS, it's a big country. More later. Go read the Larisa - Andy Sullivan thread and have a few laughs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #103
113. Nederland,STOP TRASHING DU. That's enough support for me but there's more
Edited on Sat Dec-31-05 12:21 AM by autorank
Ned(erland) said: "Don't you realize that outside of DU, nobody agrees with you? Shit, even that well known right wing blog DailyKos makes fun of you guys." (I must say, you're getting a bit harsh.)

You know what, if it was only DUers who agreed with the positions on election fraud, I'd be proud to advance those positions forever, because DUer support is one Hell of an endorsement and because the positions are correct. You disparage DKOS aw well with the "right wing" tag but also by implying that they respond to the dictates of Kos and Armando. That is hardly the case. There was and continues to be some first rate election fraud research and reporting on DKOS. Unlike a dictatorship, DKOS members don't need to follow the commands of the blog owners. Simple as that.

Now for your point that nobody outside DU agrees with us, let me make a few points:


1) PROJECT CENSORED TOP 25 STORIES: (AUGUST 2005)

Each year this project has a juried competition on stories NOT covered or covered poorly by MSM or CM (corporate media as I like to tall them). Current/previous judges: Noam Chomsky, Susan Faludi, George Gerbner, Sut Jhally , Frances Moore Lappe, Norman Solomon, Michael Parenti, Herbert I. Schiller, Barbara Seaman, Erna Smith, Mike Wallace and Howard Zinn. This is what I'd call an expert panel.

They selected this as one of the top uncovered stories of 2005. Don't know about you Nederland and other naysayers, but I think that this jury is pretty impressive. Don't notice any hard core DUers there but you never know ;)

No Paper Trail Left Behind: the Theft of the 2004 Presidential Election*
http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/voter_fraud.ht...

By Dennis Loo, Ph.D.

Cal Poly Pomona

ddloo@csupomona.edu

Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things." "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." (Through the Looking Glass)

In order to believe that George Bush won the November 2, 2004 presidential election, you must also believe all of the following extremely improbable or outright impossible things.1
1) A big turnout and a highly energized and motivated electorate favored the GOP instead of the Democrats for the first time in history.2
2) Even though first-time voters, lapsed voters (those who didnt vote in 2000), and undecideds went for John Kerry by big margins, and Bush lost people who voted for him in the cliffhanger 2000 election, Bush still received a 3.4 million vote surplus nationally.3

<snip>

---------------------------------
(Footnote 1: 1 Several of the items in this list feature Ohio and Florida because going into the election it was universally understood that the outcome hinged on these swing states.

'TruthIsAll' on the DemocraticUnderground.com offered a list that is similar in format to my highly improbables and utterly impossibles list of the 2004 election results and I have drawn directly from their list for items #7 and 8. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... ), retrieved June 4, 2005.(My comment: Here's a juried paper counted as a top censored story of the year juried by a distinguished panel. The author rightly cites the TruthIsAll work, which is ar the heart of the story. Ipso facto...)
---------------------------------
(continued)

<snip>

The Emperor (and the Electoral Process) Have No Clothes

The preceding list recounts only some of the irregularities in the 2004 election since it ignores the scores of instances of voter disenfranchisement that assumed many different forms (e.g., banning black voters in Florida who had either been convicted of a felony previously or who were inadvertently placed on the felons list by mistake, while not banning convicted Latino felons14; providing extraordinarily few voting machines in predominately Democratic precincts in Ohio; disallowing Ohio voters, for the first time, from voting in any precinct when they were unable to find their assigned precincts to vote in; and so on). A plethora of reasons clearly exists to conclude that widespread and historic levels of fraud were committed in this election.

<snip>

Killing the Messenger: the Exit Polls

Exit polls are the gold standard of vote count validity internationally. Since exit polls ask people as they emerge from the polling station whom they just voted for, they are not projections as are polls taken in the months, weeks or days before an election. They are not subject to faulty memory, voter capriciousness (voters voting differently than they indicated to a pollster previously), or erroneous projections about who will actually turn up to vote. Pollsters know who turned up to vote because the voters are standing there in front of the exit pollsters. Because of these characteristics, exit polls are exceptionally accurate. They are so accurate that in Germany, for example, the winners are announced based on the exit polls, with paper ballots being counted as a backup check against the exit polls.15 Exit polls are used, for this reason, as markers of fraud.16

2) In addition to DUers, who unlike you believe that election fraud today is like it was in years past, present and accounted for, there are a number of national organizations who share views expressed here:

(For links to these organizations go to http://www.solarbus.org/election/links.shtml, a great resource offered by DU's own Garybeck -- SolarBus.Org -- a priceless resource.)
* 51 Capital March
* ACT
* Alliance for Democracy
* Audit the Vote
* Be the Media
* Beyond Voting
* Backbone Campaign
* BlackBoxVoting.com
* BlackBoxVoting.org
* Bush Cheated '04
* Citizens Act
* Citizen Advocacy Center
* Citizens for Ethics
* Citizens for a Fair Vote Count
* Coalition Against Election Fraud
* Coalition for Visible Ballots
* Cobb for President
* Code Pink
* Common Cause
* Computer Scientist for Social Responsibility (CPSR)
* Constitution Project
* Count Every Vote
* Election Deception Dollar
* Electronic Fraud 2004
* Electronic Frontier Foundation
* Election Online
* Electronic Privacy Information Center
* Election Protection Coalition
* Election Reform Now
* Electronic Vote and Democracy
* Electoral Integrity
* ExitPollz
* Fair Elections
* Fair Vote
* Global Exchange
* Help America Recount
* Hunger for Democracy
* Investigate the Vote
* Juice for Justice
* Just a Fly on the Wall
* Justice Through Music
* League of Women Voters
* Left.org
* Mercury Coalition for Honest Elections
* National Ballot Integrity Project
* National Coalition for Verified Voting
* National Committee for Voting Integrity
* National Voting Rights Institute
* No Confidence Resolution
* No Mandate
* Nov 2 Truth
* Nov 3
* Open Voting Consortium
* Perfect Voting System
* People For the American Way
* Progressive Democrats of America
* Project Vote Smart
* Reign of Error
* SAVE Democracy
* Solar Bus
* Stolen Election 2004
* The Dean People
* This Time We're Watching
* True Majority
* Truth in Voting
* Up for Democracy
* US Counts Votes
* US Voting Integrity Project
* Velvet Revolution
* Voter Confidence Resolution
* Verified Voting
* Voice 4 Change
* Vote America
* Vote Scam
* Vote Trust USA
* Votergate Resource Center
* Votergate Movie
* Voters Unite
* Wellstone Democratic Renewal Club
* We Do Not Concede Coalition
* Where's the Paper?

3) Here are some great people who are on record as supporting the fraud arguments. None of they disparage DU or the arguments here, like you do, and everyone who I talked to (and I wrote the following articles) were clear on fraud being detected by exit polls.

The National Summit to Save Our Elections Convenes in Portland, Oregon Day 1

]
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0510/S00003.htm
Report By DU & PI Poster autorank
On special assignment for
"Scoop" at the conference


"Whenever there is electronic vote counting, there is no basis for confidence in the results of elections. You have no right to believe in those elections." - Paul Lehto, Attorney.

"Lehto is currently suing Sequoia voting systems as a result of clear failures to produce an accurate vote count during the 2004 presidential election. He outlined a simple syllogism: the software used by voting machine companies to capture votes on electronic voting machines is "proprietary" software developed and owned by the companies; these companies keep the software and methods a trade secret; therefore, the results of our elections can no longer be trusted or accepted as legitimate since we have no way to review software, performance, and security guarantees."

The National Summit to Save Our Elections Continues in Portland, Oregon Day 2-3



Days 2 & 3: The Ghost Youll Never See in the Machine (electronic voting); Outsourcing Elections to Corporate America; Methods of Monitoring Elections; plus State and Community Level Action.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0510/S00082.htm

Report By DU & PI Poster autorank
On special assignment for
"Scoop" at the conference

Corporate Control of the Final Vote Count: Centralized Voter Registration Databases

"Matthew Pascarella offered a clear reason for concern about the imminent privatization of state-wide centralized voter registration databases. Section 303 of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA),, requires that states complete this process within the next three months. These databases will be the gateway to voting and the fences that keep people from the polls. Given the 2000 Presidential Election in Florida where (there were 2 lists in FL 2000 purge the first one was of 57,000(TK) and the other, more complete one that came up from the court case had over 90,000 individuals listed) 50,000 voters were disenfranchised due to state computerization activities; there is real cause for concern. Pascarella is a researcher, writer, and producer for Greg Palast. Greg Palast broke the major story on the Florida felon purge which removed over 57,000 Floridians from the voting rolls before the 2000 elections."

Verifying Election Results Panel

Thom Hartmann presented a brief but persuasive review of the use of exit polls in election monitoring. He reviewed the process begun in Serbia and successfully carried forward to the nations of Georgia, and the Ukraine. Voting rights activists formed a core group of election specialists who publicized the effort and tracked exit polls carefully. At the exact point of the final exit poll, a decision was made to immediately challenge the election if the poll indicated election fraud or stand down if the election seemed free and fair. Hartmann transitioned to the conduct of exit polls in the U.S. These had become increasingly more accurate until the 2004 election. The national exit polls showed a Kerry victory (until the very last national poll was adjusted and coincided with the actual results). The state exit polls, conducted by the same poll takers, were not adjusted and also showed a clear Kerry victory. Why didnt Americans react the same way the Ukrainians did, Hartmann asked? His point was particularly telling since the margin of difference between Ukraine exit polls and US exits was only about 1%. The reaction by the voters was entirely different. The Ukraine had a revote and selected a different candidate for President.

4) Some additional names, just a sampling:

Rev. Jessee Jackson
Rev. Moss
Fitrakis
Wasserman
Keefer
Hartmann
Lampley
Rhodes
Vidal
M.C. Miller
Conyers
The entire Black Congressional Caucus
Barbara Boxer
Kerry (if he'll fess up ;)
and many, many more...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 02:18 AM
Response to Reply #113
114. Look who the Naysayers are defending...crooks! See this Greatest Post
If you defend the legitimacy of Bush, you apologize for garbage like this. cal04's post has more and links directly to the article. Recommend it. It's a great post.

How on earth can anybody defend people like this? Why exert the effort to apologize for the Bush victory? Beats me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
From a Fitrakis article:

"In the month prior to and immediately after the 2004 presidential election' the Republican Party engaged in an orchestrated campaign to divert the mainstream media focus away from election fraud and irregularities in Ohio and manufactured the myth of "voter fraud." According to a former Columbus Dispatch reporter' Ohio Senator Mike Dewine sent his spokesperson' Mike Dawson' to meet with the editorial board of the Dispatch and other Ohio newspapers. The primary talking point for the GOP was that there was no evidence of irregularities in Ohio. The Republican state legislature used the "voter fraud" spin to introduce the draconian Ohio House Bill 3. The "election reform" bill has passed both Republican-dominated houses and is awaiting a conference committee at the start of the new year.

In March 2005' Congressman Bob Ney held a U.S. House Administrative (as on Abrmahoff & Ney) hearing at the Ohio Statehouse where a general counsel for the brand new voting rights group' the American Center for Voting Rights (ACVR)' told the Congressional committee that the voting problems in Ohio were the result of the NAACP paying people with crack in order to entice them to register to vote. ACVR's general counsel' Mark F. "Thor" Hearne' turned out to be the former national general counsel for Bush-Cheney '04' Inc.' with no history of working in a voting rights organization. Hearne relied on a lawsuit filed against the NAACP in Wood County' Ohio "alleging fraudulent voter registration under the Ohio Corrupt Practices Act."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paineinthearse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-01-06 02:07 AM
Response to Reply #97
118. I was watching CSPAN Journal Saturday morning....
Isn't it amazing that so many trolls contact the (alternative) media on queue, and blast the same message?

The one on CSPAN used the buzzwords "get over it, George Bush won Florida in 2000" and "you're plugging in wrong numbers into faulty formulas".

Simply amazing how far they will go. They must really be afraid we are getting close to the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mountebank Donating Member (755 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #82
89. And what about new voters who turned 18 between 2000 and 2004?
Don't you need to factor those into your equation? Because believe it or not, a significant portion of young voters who turned 18 after the 2000 election voted for Bush in 2004. You remove the ones that died and then don't add the ones that came in. So you see, anyone can make stats lie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #89
92. You missed the point. How many Bush/Gore voters died is the question.
Edited on Thu Dec-29-05 07:55 PM by autorank
How many Bush 2000 voters still alive could have voted in 2004? It's a means of understanding the assumptions in the NEPs.

The question had nothing to do with new voters, who went overwhelmingly for Kerry anway. Here's the National Exit Poll numbers (I put them in bold so you wouldn't miss the point):

Kerry won the 18-29 age group by 56-42% at the 12:22am pristine NEP timeline,

He won by 54-45% in the corrupted Final at 1:25pm (which we know was massaged for Bush).



See the "bold" section of post 94 ;) You'll feel right at home.

We're done btw. Your comment "anyone can make stats lie" is as pathetic as your arguments.

You can post to me but I won't respond. :hi: as in bye, bye, so long, take a hike, Sayanora.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mountebank Donating Member (755 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-30-05 02:07 AM
Response to Reply #92
99. You can make the font size as large as you want and it still won't make
any sense. If you want to calculate the total possible Bush voters in 2004 (assuming no one switches), you need the total Bush votes in 2000 minus the total who died, plus the total voters who registered. That is the total "possible" Bush votes. It's a pretty lame and meaningless stat, considering the amount of swing voters, but if you feel like calculating it, you might as well do it right. Yes - Kerry won the new/young vote. No dispute. Still 42% of young voters voted for Bush. That's a lot of votes you aren't adding in to the total, and I quote very loosely, "possible" Bush voters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-30-05 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #99
111. careful, "new" voters aren't all "young"
Plenty of people who were eligible to vote in 2000 didn't, but then voted in 2004. But we knew what you meant.

Yeah, the bigger problem is that as much as it may pain us to admit it, Gore 2000 voters aren't required to vote for Kerry. They aren't even required to remember that they voted for Gore, and a lot of them apparently don't (and/or they don't admit it). I just crunched the numbers from the 2004 General Social Survey, in which people were asked who they voted for in 2000. Retrospectively, Bush beat Gore by almost 12 points (actually more when I applied the post-stratification weights). I doubt that is due to Gore-voter differential die-off. Gore should not feel bad: the same thing happened to Bob Dole.

TIA always hated it when I pointed this out. Seems to me it blows one of his, umm, loudest arguments out of the water.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-02-06 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #61
119. I'm curious as to exactly
what you want. Would you like to be specific?

This is not meant to be a snarky question, and I agree with you that you can't prove anything without the data. But I'd be curious to know what you want to know, and what hypothesis you would test.

My own view is that specific fraud hypothesis have been in short supply, and those that have been tested, have come up negative. One was reported by Mitofsky in his Philadelphia debate with Steve Freeman. There is an account of it here:

http://inside.bard.edu/~lindeman/slides.html

And yes, I had a hand in it, and was acknowledged, together with Mark Lindeman, in the presentation. It made use of a measure of precinct-level discrepancy that we devised together.

I think the result presents serious difficulties for the argument that fraud was the cause of the exit poll discrepancy, and I give my own take on it here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BamaBecky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-27-05 10:58 AM
Response to Original message
45. Congratulations & nominated
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-27-05 11:45 AM
Response to Original message
46. Anyone lacking math phobia knew Kerry won on election night.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-27-05 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #46
60. I think Kerry lost
I have no fear of math.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #46
62. I think Kerry lost
...and have no fear of math either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #46
64. John Conyers says he won Ohio.
And if he won Ohio, he won the presidency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #46
65. McCamy Taylor, thanks for stating the obvious.
Here on DU, most of us give the Democratic point of view the benefit of the doubt. Some, however, choose to prop up the illegitimate regime of Bushco. Now if it's a question of intellectual honesty, you know, someone ACTUALLY believes Bush won, that's fine. But the consequence of stating that position is to receive some serious push-back.

I don't see any way Bush could have won and I've noticed huge inconsistencies including the margin of error problems in the 41 states that are clear pointers to some major problems. Just look at NH, where the Republicans had to effectuate their strategy--* does well right out of the gate. Well we know that in NH, the Republicans who ran that campaign are getting ready to do some time and pay some fines for ELECTION FRAUD. What would make us think it stopped at jamming phones and the like?
Nothing.

This is a willful, aggressive, take-no-prisoners regime. If there's anyone on this forum who wants to argue for them after massive race-based voter suppression, manipulation of centralized registration databases, and all the rest, take a look at this from one of the links posted for TruthIsAll. Respond to this with cogent arguments, you who say Bush won, convince yourselves by dealing with the facts:

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

FALSE RECALL, RELUCTANT RESPONDERS, HOW THEY VOTED IN 2000: IMPLAUSIBLE, CONTRADICTORY AND MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllPollin...

Naysayers have a problem with the 2004 pre-election and exit polls. Regardless of how many were taken or how large the samples, the results are never good enough for them. They prefer to cite two implausible hypotheticals: Bush non-responders (rBr) and Gore voter memory lapse ("false recall").

There is no evidence that Gore voters forget any more than Bush voters. On the contrary, if someone you knew robbed you in broad daylight, would you forget who it was four years later? In 2000, Gore and the voters were robbed in broad daylight.

Naysayers claim that bias favored Kerry in the pre-election and exit polls. Yet they offer no evidence to back it up. They claim that Gore voters forgot and told the exit pollsters they voted for Bush in 2000. It's the famous "false recall" hypothetical. They were forced to use it when they could not come up with a plausible explanation for the impossible weightings of Bush and Gore voter turnout in the Final National Exit poll.

According to the final 2004 NEP, which Bush won by 51-48%, 43% of the 13660 respondents voted for Bush in 2000 while only 37% voted for Gore. This contradicts the reluctant Bush responder (rBr) hypothesis. Furthermore, 43% of the 122.3 million who voted in 2004 is 52.57mm, yet Bush only got 50.45 mm votes in 2000. The 43/37% split is a mathematical impossibility.

In addition, approximately 1.75 mm Bush 2000 voters died prior to the 2004 election. Therefore, no more than 48.7 mm of Bush 2000 voters could have turned out to vote in 2004. The Bush 2000 voter share was 48.7/122.3 (or 39.8%), assuming that all of the Bush 2000 voters still living came to the polls. These mathematical facts are beyond dispute. Kerry won the final 1:25pm exit poll by 50.93-48.66%, assuming equal 39.8% weights.

For the same reason, Kerry must have done even better than his 51.4-47.6% winning margin at the 12:22am timeline (13047 respondents). Here the Bush/Gore mix was 41/39%. But we have just shown that 39.8% was the absolute maximum Bush share. If we apply equal weightings to the 12:22am results, then Kerry won by 52.25-46.77%, a 6.7 million vote margin (63.8-57.1mm).

First-time voters and those who sat out the 2000 election, as well as Nader and Gore 2000 voters, were overwhelming Kerry voters. The recorded Bush 2004 vote was 62 million. Where did he get the 13 million new voters from 2000? How do the naysayers explain it? Only by ignoring the mathematical facts and raising new implausible theories.
____________________________________________________________
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
radio4progressives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #65
90. Excellent Post AutoRank...
:applause: :bounce: :applause: :yourock: :applause: :bounce: :applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-02-06 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #46
120. I think Kerry lost
but I think it was a foul election all the same.

(And I'm not scared of math either).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-27-05 11:45 AM
Response to Original message
47. duplicate
Edited on Tue Dec-27-05 11:45 AM by McCamy Taylor
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zodiak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-27-05 03:15 PM
Response to Original message
51. 3 things
1. I had no idea that TIA was tombstoned. As a long-time lurker here, I would like to second the nomination for reconsideration of membership. And can someone please say why he was t-stoned...the question wasn't answered?

2. I was hoping to see someone from the "other side" of the issue mount a cogent defense of the "official story" hypothesis on this thread. I am pleasantly suprised that no such cogent defense has resulted.

3. What disturbs me about the Mitofsky exit poll "proof" is that our evidence ostensibly (because I donot know for sure) comes from a screetshot. I appreciate that we were not supposed to see this information in the first place, but do we have greater verification of the timing and the state of the exit poll results other than a screen-shot? (Americans have been conditioned to belive that the internet is full of hoaxes and that electronic images can be altered).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-27-05 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #51
55. Answers to 1 & 2
The reason that you have not seen a "cogent defense" of the official story is because anyone who offers up such a defense immediately gets labeled a Repuke and a Bush supporter. There are many of us who had strong statistical and technical reasons for believing that TIA was wrong. However, posting those reasons usually resulted in a series of ad hominem attacks--which is precisely why TIA got banned. After a while, those of us who questioned TIA's methodology simply got tired of the attacks and gave up trying to reason with him/her. The end result was that the Election Reform forum became populated solely by the "TIA is God" crowd. Most everyone else bid good riddance and left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-27-05 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #51
57. Point 3. Screen shot. This has been verified.
The screen shots and data capture was the miracle. The subsequent verification of the accuracy of the screen shots is very significant. The material TIA has been working with is not challenged as an accurate representation of the four exit polls at the given times. The real issue is getting Mitofsky and the network consortium which owns the data to open it up for further inspection. A number of questions could be answered that would sheet further light on the validity of the polls. Mitofsky refused Conyers request for this and was sent to the network consortium. They refused also. There are no valid arguments against doing this. There may be a political argument. It would further enhance the exit poll results, in all likelihood, which would undermine Bush legitimacy. After all, one of the consortium members, CBS, owned by Viacom, had it's Chairman, Sumner Redstone, a long time Democrat, reverse his position on Bush right after the Dan Rather ambush. The media is scared. The NYT hold on an explosive story mid October 2004 is another example. The truth can come out but it will take someone, a whistle blower, to release the data on these polls.

With regard to point 2, there was a vigorous debate on these polls on the Elections Forum and those with opposing views were not chased off. In fact they came, it would seem, to engage in the debate and did so at some length.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zodiak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #57
68. What disturbs me
Is that the legitimacy of a Presidency cannot be questioned based on a screenshot.

That is not my wisdom, but the unfortunate collective wisdom of the electorate. When people ask for proof and we supply a screenshot as the keystone, many will guffaw by pseudo-intellectual reflex.

Not that I agree with it, but it seems to be a probable outcome considering the derision a stolen election hypothesis gets from some Democrats.

I am fairly convinced that the Republicans stole the election, even if definitive proof never surfaces. They had motive, means, and opportunity, and enough evidence did leak out to warrant a full investigation where all of the cards are on the table. We, unfortunately, will not get that for some time because so many of us don't want to believe it could happen.

I find it interesting, also, that the explanation I get for cogent arguments and tombstoning in a couple posts above seems rather biased. Was it ad hominem attacks? I see. That is all that needs to be said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-27-05 09:56 PM
Response to Original message
58. Exit poll deviations I have a serious problem with
I do not however, place much stock in the analysis that's based on cheap media polls.

No responsible statistician would, either.

As I said, though- the exit polls are another matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-27-05 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #58
59. You're right. The exit polls do create a serious problem.
Take a look at the simulation with the aggregated public opinion polls and the rationale for that. It may be of interest. There is a recognition of "cheap media polls", as you call them (the type issued under "ABC" or whomever, and done by a barely cited group) and the Zogby and other polls which have a good record for accuracy.

The exit poll story is just one of several vectors that merge at the point of election fraud. If election day went off like a charm, were no voters thrown off the rolls by central registration databases, had lines been reasonable, had precincts not changed, had provisional ballots been accepted, had there not been threats of polling place intimidation, then the disparity between the exits and actual votes might have been arguable. But at this point, the bias has to be in favor of the exit polls providing a strong clue that something is rotten. Then of course there is all the standard stuff--would they? YES could they? YES did they? sure seems like it.

Good points.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SamuelAlito Donating Member (70 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 12:05 PM
Response to Original message
63. Hope I can use this in the Senate!
That way, when 51 senators vote against me and 48 vote for me, I can still win the confirmation with EM's help

The Right Honorable Samuel A. Alito
(the A stands for Awesome)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 01:33 AM
Response to Reply #63
75. Judge, when you get in, will you publish your rate card on DU?
I'm sorry to have enabled more cheating but I guess that's the price of free speech (and this is a good reason to support ongoing free speech when you become a judge).

Thanks for joining the thread and I'll cya around.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mountebank Donating Member (755 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 07:01 PM
Response to Original message
69. A Critical Question: And what about the New Hampshire recount?
I, too, seriously questioned the results of the 2004 election and put in my fair share of time mining through vote tallies in California making sure things added up at the county level. I still believe the electoral college, and therefore the election, would have gone to Kerry had all votes been counted correctly. Mainly I feel this is because of pernicious and downright illegal and unfortunately highly successful disenfranchisement of voters in Ohio and elsewhere. However, I stopped believing that Bush's 3 million+ nation-wide victory was the result of eletronic vote manipulation. I still believe electronic voting is highly vulnerable to large-scale manipulation and needs tight regulation. But what changed my mind was the New Hampshire recount. If you'll remember New Hampshire had one of the largest and most suspicious shifts between exit polls and final vote tallies and was a state with electronic voting. At the Green Party's request, a hand recount of 11 precincts was conducted and thoroughly reported on by Ida Briggs, who posted on DU continually during the process (don't know if she still posts here). In short, there were no statistical differences between the electronic and hand count. You can read Ida Briggs's summary here:

http://www.invisibleida.com/index.html

So, one can talk about statistical impossibilities, and certain recounts were definitely bogus (e.g. Ohio) - but the NH recount seemed to be legit, and if the large swing between exit polls and final vote tallies were due to electronic manipulation, it seems something would have turned up here. For me, that was the final word on talk of nation-wide electronic vote manipulation.

That's my take. I'd love to hear comments or rebuttals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #69
73. More critical, What about the OHIO recount; the FLORIDA recount.
If you could call what happened in Ohio a recount. There are multiple witnesses who testify to the resistance and then shoddiness of that recount. That was the whole ballgame. And Florida, there were many questions including all those adjacent precincts with the same results (just the latest) and all the other things that make the Bush machine in Florida so endearing.

As for Ida Briggs results being a) representative of the whole state and b) negating the NH state exit poll, I'd let her speak for herself. She may have but I can't track it down. Here use of "apparently that's just the way things are" doesn't seem to indicate any finality from the recount. I also don't know about the ballot security procedures up there. The ballots were evidence and the question is where were they and under whose supervision. You can have a recount but without knowing that you're actually recounting the election day ballots/receipts, what do you have? The work Briggs did in spotting potential problems and responding very quickly was and remains very impressive, a model. Every Democratic party organization should have that plus much more as a rapid response.

We agree on the vulnerability of electronic voting but it's not just electronic voting that presents a problem. Read up on the history of elections in this country from the 1740's on and it's not a pretty picture. There are a variety of election fraud experiences. For example, subsequent research on the original ballots showed that, in fact, the Massachusetts Constitution was not ratified by the necessary margin (presuming nobody doctored the ballots and there was no motive discernible on this project). Nice outcome, maybe not the right process.

Are elections and free and unimpeded access to the vote end values in and of themselves?

Or are elections a means to power with all other factors playing a supporting role?

The `
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mountebank Donating Member (755 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 02:36 AM
Response to Reply #73
76. Ok - I still think the NH recount was legitimate and has been forgotten
Right - so I guess you're saying that there could have been ballot substitution in New Hampshire. I don't know the specs on their security of ballots - same as you - but I don't think I need to know that to know that when you start talking ballot substitution, on the scale of swinging an election by 10+ percentage points, all of a sudden you are talking about much more difficult fraud (more difficult than changing vote tallies in a central tabulator), something that would require more brazen acts of criminality, with more likelihood of something suspicious being seen/heard/known/leaked. Considering the reputation NH has for transparent elections overseen by largely non-partisan civil servants, I see this as much less likely than tampering with the central tabulator, which seems to be the most plausible way widespread electronic vote fraud could have been perpetrated in 2004, and which seems to be ruled out based on the NH recount. Am I 100% positive there was no widespread fraud in NH? Of course not. But I am sure enough to conclude for my purposes that Kerry lost the popular vote. I'm quite up on the bs recounts in Ohio, etc. I'm well-versed in our history of vote fraud. I put in my hours on vote fraud in the last election. Yet I conclude that Kerry lost, give or take a few. Chalk it up to difference in interpretation, I guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 06:02 AM
Response to Reply #76
78. What's your basis for the glowing review of NH election officials.
I was up there on some business a couple of years ago. I picked up a paper and found a most interesting scandal. It seems that the judges in the NH system were giving each other incredible hearings and judgments when one of them appeared before the bar for a divorce case. This involved more than a few judges, quite a few. It was a major scandal. There was a review of some of the cases and it gave new meaning to the term "spousal abuse." Now that's the judicial system, the entire system because it was judges from the various courts appearing in divorce cases. I'm less than inspired by NH civil servants.

In addition, Nader does not inspire me either. I liked his consumer work but 2000 and then 2004 were ridiculous displays of ego and pique. Saying there was no difference between Gore and Bush was bizarre and in retrospect, profoundly mistaken, in the worst way. Had it been Cobb asking for and supervising the recount and had Cobb blessed it, I'd have no problem accepting the result.

I noticed you sneaked in your belief that Bush won. Too bad. We don't know who won but by the evidence used to topple nasty regimes overseas, the exit polls (and ours are superior), it sure doesn't look like it. That's before you even get near the massive acts of voter suppression and other irregularities.

Our party is about to take another screwing in 2006 due to the Ostrich Syndrome and so the focus needs to be right there. The new Voter ID laws the Republicans passed are a Jim Crow revival. Centralized registration databases must be monitored after Florida (twice, 2000 and 2004), and, of course, phantom ballots delivered to a vendor secured and guarded machine, never to be seen after you tochh the screen (not to mention the tabulator problems).

I just don't see any reason, especially after all the horrible actions of Bush and Co, to give him any benefit of the doubt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mountebank Donating Member (755 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #78
80. NH has a reputation for clean elections
I remember reading this from several DU posters from NH during the recount. All voting machines in NH are required to have a voter-verified paper ballot. I remember that Ida Briggs had a lot of good things to say about the people running the NH recount. Sure - there is corruption everywhere, including NH (though judges were not running the recount) but it seems to be one of the least corrupt states when it comes to elections. This is likely why the recount went off without a hitch.

I don't think you have to love Nader to believe in the results of the recount either. It was monitored by reps from all three parties. If nothing else, Nader was a means to an end.

I "slipped" the fact that I think Kerry lost the popular vote into the first post, if you'll check it out. I also said I think Kerry would likely have won the electoral vote if all people who wanted to vote had voted and had their votes been correctly counted, because states like NM and OH would likely have gone blue. I'm not downplaying the disenfranchisement and voter suppression at all. In fact, I am mainly arguing here because I believe that this is where we need to focus our efforts - this is where the real fraud occurs.

What I don't believe is that Bush's 3 million vote surplus was the result of electronic vote tampering and I don't believe the exit polls were accurate. And this is based largely on NH. If something had turned up in NH, I would have been willing to believe it because the exit polls were way off there.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #80
81. Quick point and a NH example
You're using the NH recount to prove that NH has a reputation for fair elections and then saying that since they have fair elections that disproves the exit poll hypothesis and invalidates them in all cases. This is what's called "tortured logic." It's a closed loop of assumptions that supposedly reinforce your claim but, in fact, do nothing of the sort.

Come up with something about NH other than one recount in 2004 to establish the clean elections hypothesis and you might have the beginning of an argument to support your assertion. My point, easy to document, is that in the past few years NH's judicial system existed in a culture of corruption, the judges fixing their "brothers'" divorce cases. That's a general point but this is governing body, ultimately for anything like a recount.

This type of argument is what I see a lot on DU and other forums. No real case, just circular logic that really proves nothing but results in grand assertions.

The person chosen to run the * campaign in NH was an unnamed conspirator in charges of election fraud, among others. This is not a coincidence. They knew it because it was from a 2002 case being prosecuted. Corrupt judges, campaign leaders under indictment...NH doesn't sound any different from any place else.

From Josh Marshall:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_10_...
Ya heard it here first.

The un indicted co-conspirator in a 2002 election fraud case, which has already yielded two felony guilty pleas, is none other than Jim Tobin, New England regional chair of Bush-Cheney 2004, according to court documents filed Thursday by the New Hampshire Democratic Party and now reported by the Manchester Union Leader.


Tobin, says the article, did not return calls requesting comment from the Union Leader Tuesday or Wednesday. Tobin has also not returned repeated calls over the last three months from TPM requesting comment on his alleged involvement in the case. TPM last attempted to contact Tobin on Sunday and Monday of this week.

<snip>

3. Does the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign believe that Tobin is an appropriate person to oversee the Bush campaign in New Hampshire and the rest of New England when his alleged involvement in this earlier election fraud case is still being investigated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mountebank Donating Member (755 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #81
83. Ok - here is an example....
I guess you don't count the comments about NH having a transparent election process that I remember from DU. Ok. Also the fact that they have voter-verified paper ballots. Ok. None of those had to do with the 2004 recount. But I guess it's still circular reasoning in your mind. Fine. Here is something I found quickly on Google from a group called Democracy for New Hampshire. Seems to be a pretty legit outfit from cursory perusal, but I guess they could be a front group for Jim Tobin - who knows. Anyway, they say this:

"Here in New Hampshire we are in a unique position as the "first in the nation" state. We live in a state that still uses hand counted paper ballots in many voting precincts, and even those that use voting machines still provide a paper trail. New Hampshire's Secretary of State Bill Gardner, the longest running Secretary of State in the nation, is one of the most trusted officials in public office you will find. Secretary Gardner has been a leading voice for voting integrity in numerous ways, including the institution of uniform hand counted paper ballot recounts and same day voter registration. Following the 2004 presidential election, New Hampshire, in stark contrast to the Ohio recount debacle, we showed the nation how to do an honest election recount.

The DFNH Fair Elections Committee will highlight the ways in which NH is already an examplar state to the nation in the area of voting integrity, and identify and work on those areas where we need to improve. We will use granite state integrity, yankee ingenuity, and the New England heritage we inherit from the original patriots and defenders of democracy, to work towards fulfilling the DFNH mission to protect the foundations of our democracy and the integrity of our political process."

http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/922

So - one more piece of evidence is that a NH voting integrity group seems to think their SoS is a stand-up guy. Again, this validates comments I heard during the NH recount from NH DU'ers. Guess I should have saved all those thread links. Damn.

So you've proved the Republican Party chair in NH is a criminal. I read Talking Points Memo, too, so I know that. But how does that change the facts of the recount that were monitored by reps from all three parties? Did Jim Tobin run from precinct to precinct swapping ballots? And let's remember, this phone-jamming that he got nailed for was discovered and exposed. He went to trial and was convicted. But he's such a genius that he managed to mastermind a state-wide ballot-swapping scheme. Oh, ok. In fact, I'll one-up you: he got nailed for phone-jamming on purpose to provide a diversion from the larger ballot-swapping scheme. Got it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #80
84. Wrong. You're so keen on NH and one recount. Look at history.
Edited on Thu Dec-29-05 02:23 PM by autorank
NH--An early site for election manipulation.

http://www.votescam.com/chap1.php

Dr. Howard Strauss, a Princeton computer sciences professor and a member of a tiny nationwide group of worried citizens who call themselves "Election Watch," says:

"The presidential election of 1992, without too much difficulty and with little chance of the felons getting caught, could be stolen by computers for one candidate or another. The candidate who can win by computer has worked jar enough ahead to rig the election by getting his 'consultants' to write the software that runs thousands of vote-counting computers from coast to coast. There are so many computers that use the same software now that a presidential election can be tampered with- in fact, may already be tampered with. Because of the trade secrecy, nobody can be the wiser."

Computers in voting machines are effectively immune from checking and rechecking. If they are fixed, you cannot know it, and you cannot be at all sure of an honest tally.

In the 1988 Republican primary in New Hampshire, there was no panel of computer experts who worked for the people and thoroughly examined the source codes before and after the voting. It is likely that a notoriously riggable collection of "Shouptronic" computers "preordained" voting results to give George Bush his "Hail Mary" victory in New Hampshire.

Nobody save a small group of computer engineers, like John Sununu, the state's Republican governor, would be the wiser.

Even Republicans think NH elections suck

Here you find Sen Smith going after the NH state officials for DOING NOTHING on the phone jamming case carried out by the Republican campaign head of Bush-Cheney in 2004. Where's you wonderful official(s) on this one.

Phone-jamming was an outrage
Republicans should speak out in anger

By BOB SMITH
For the Monitor
October 19. 2004 8:26AM

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID...

This is from former Republican Senator Smith of NH. He takes the place to task.

Today we hear news that Charles McGee, the former executive director of the New Hampshire Republican State Committee, and Allen Raymond, a GOP consultant, pleaded guilty to federal charges stemming from their involvement in the jamming of telephones on Election Day, Nov. 5, 2002. Democrats' computer-generated calls to get out were blocked and thus voters did not receive the intended message due to illegal action by some in the Republican Party.

At their plea hearings in U.S. District Court, McGee and Raymond admitted they spoke to an "unidentified official with a national political organization" about the illegality. As sad and deplorable as those actions were, regrettably, Republican Party officials in New Hampshire and Washington have decided to put "politics above people" and delay this much needed and urgent investigation of the facts.

Where is the outrage of elected officials and party leaders?"

Where were these champions of freedom indeed.

Your agenda is clear, validate NH and by some strange, weird logic topple the National Exit Polls.

You have done neither.

One final point, Nader's campaign was a ringer in 2004. He was there the cause Democrats to lose the presidency. I do not accept anything from anyone like Nader who is intellectually dishonest and a spoiler for the Bush administration.

Nader hates the Democratic party. Neither he or his campaign have any credibility with me now or ever. MY RECOMMENDATION IS THAT YOU GIVE THEM NO CREDIBILITY EITHER.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mountebank Donating Member (755 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #84
85. Nice source website. Everything in bold, capital letters and links to buy
their products. I'm talking about the Votescam website you sourced there. That is a textbook example of a website I would not trust without a lot more information about who runs it. "Send money to Taos, NM!" Right....

Anyway, I don't see anything in what you quoted there that has any bearing on the NH recount of 2004, which hand-counted voter-verified ballots in precincts specifically chosen because they had suspect differences between exit polls and vote tallies. How much more transparent can it be?

Putting your comments in bold and capital letters is not going to make them any more credible, just like they didn't for TIA. Nor is calling my "agenda" into question (playing the "agenda" card is a desperate act, really, and I think you played it a little too soon). You've obviously done a lot of reading and you're good at linking to websites, so you get a slap on the back for that. Good work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #85
86. Now that you're reduced to commenting on print style, we're done.


:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mountebank Donating Member (755 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #86
87. Ok - try again when you feel like facing the point in question head on
instead of tossing red herrings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #85
91. That doesn't bother me. What does bother me is
They say that they are working with Bev Harris and they are hawking Bev's book.

And I don't particularly trust HER exactly.

The second group they say they are working with is this site:
http://www.ballotintegrity.org /

I haven't heard anything bad about them (or good even) so they might be okay. Someone else will have to answer that one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-30-05 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #76
110. another problem with the Massive NH Fraud hypothesis
is that the final pre-election polls showed NH basically tied. If one backs up a bit, it looks like Kerry may have had a several-point edge -- but to assume that he Must Have won by close to 15 points because the exit polls said so is just spooky.

That's a problem in other places, too. Does anyone really think that Kerry won New York by 31 points? Hey, we may be blue, but we're not that blue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andromeda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 10:57 PM
Response to Original message
74. TIA put his heart and soul into his mathematic analysis...
and burnt the midnight oil for OUR benefit. I don't know what happened either but I, for one, wish he was back at DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 03:00 AM
Response to Reply #74
77. I don't think it was his math skills
but his interpersonal skills that did him in. I'm not sure he took well to criticism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foo_bar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-30-05 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #77
104. it was a bit of both
If TIA had a statistical leg to stand on, his beliefs could be corroborated by peer review without the "with us or against us" invective. Instead we saw a worldview comparable to Ptolemaic astronomy, only tenable with fudge factors galore and the occasional immolation of non-believers (and with the wrong object at its center, as this thread demonstrates). Be it a hoax or spiritual crusade (or both), it does pose a challenge to terrestrial logic:

It's simple probability and statistics 101.
(snip)
One can apply the Cum. Normal Distribution or Poission function (or both to confirm) to determine the probability of rare events occuring by chance only.. There are other models which may be applicable. I found these two perfect and easy to use. All you need is Excel; the functions are built-in.

I have also used this method to calculate the probability that
1- at least 15 JFK witnesses would meet unnatural deaths in the year following the assasination.
2- at least 16 world-class microbiologists would meet unnatural deaths in a 4 month period following 9/11.
3- The probability that at least a certain number of people would suffer from mad cows disease in a specific geographic area in a given year.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 07:48 PM
Response to Original message
94. Here's why we should all assume Kerry won in 2004.
2000 was stolen fake "felon purge" takes 50k real voters off the rolls--they can't vote on election day--if any percentage of them vote, we're quite sure it would have been for Gore since they were minority voters predominantly. I don't care about hanging chads or any of that crap. Then there were the "spoiled" ballots in mostly minority localities. We know that was bullshit also because the Republicans have been running that scam since the 70's. There is another pot. Oh, and we know because of the "staged riot" by Republican staffers to stop the Miami recount. Staged events around elections are a Republican specialty. And we know because the Supreme Court 5 reversed their states rights position to Federalize Florida...why, they were oh, so consistent on other matters of Federal-state conflict.

We know that there should be a thorough investigation of 2004 and we're confident that it would demonstrate that it was stolen. I'm not going to recite the evidence here, it's everywhere on DU and the web. Ohio, massive suppression, crazy vote counts, bizarre registration figures, security alerts that were not real (remember the 2000 "riot") to "privatize tabulation, DRE's that only erred to the benefit of Bush, National and State Exit Polls showing a Kerry win that had to be changed 12 hours after the final result to make it look like Bush won. Pre-election polls aggregated (the non corporate ones) that show an extremely low probability that Bush won. Problems galore in Florida again beginning with an attempt to pull another BS felon purge, which was uncovered by Matt Pascarella of GregPalast.Com thus preventing a repeat of the 2000 scenario. NC voting machine fiasco's. All the garbage in WA state. Higher than expected Bush totals in friendly areas like CA and NY that just 'sorta appeared' which gave Bush a nice popular vote boost. Vanishing Kerry votes as the evening went on in OK. An unwillingness of anyone to cooperate with Conyers -- networks turning down requests to see polling data back up to help find fraud; Blackwell refusing to show up at the Conyers hearing; a bogus recount, etc. etc.

But here's the best evidence that 2004 was stolen...motive, means, inclination

Motive: keep power, we al know that one...they must stay in power, must have their war, must have their rake off with tax cuts etc., must avoid global warming, must have power to avoid prosecution.

Means: American elections have had problems since colonial times. There's an infrastructure out there available. The voting machine companies, at that time, were all right wing...the voting machine security was/is a joke, and some employees at a key company had big time records for computer fraud! The machines are just crude computers that can be programmed to flip votes, incorrectly tabulate votes, and such. AND nobody can look to see if there's a problem because the machines are "proprietary," their "software and methods" cannot be examined by public officials or the public.

INCLINATION: If you defend 2004 here are the people you're defending, the people you argue so hard DID NOT STEAL THE ELECTION, arguments around this forum since the the suspicions started.

Naysayers, the people you defend did the following:

--Let a city be destroyed through inaction;
--Let several hundred thousand survivors starve for days by inaction;
--Spend $26 million on voting machines for Louisiana in 2004...
--...and denied $24 million the same year (2004) for levee maintenance;
--Lied about WMD;
--Paid people to lie about WMD (Chalabi);
--Allowed NYT and Miller to lie about WMD;
--Let Osama sit while attacking Iraq based on lies;
--Got thousands of our people killed and tens of thousands injured by the bogus war;
--Ruined our good standing from Clinton throughout the world;
--Let tens of thousands suffer from illness, lack of medical care, no power, etc. in Iraq;
--Ignored global warming--lied about it;
--Ignored the uninsured in this country;
--Allowed drug companies to rip-off seniors and the rest of us;
--Listened in on phone and other conversations illegally;
--Appointed lunatics to the Federal bench thus perpetuating the madness;
--Tolerated a culture of corruption in their party (e.g., DeLay) and
--Actually put mercury back in the eco system.

So, when naysayers show up to defend the result of election 2004, these are the people they are defending.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-30-05 03:48 AM
Response to Reply #94
101. Walking the walk, January 6, 2005--Supporting Boxer's Challenge
Edited on Fri Dec-30-05 03:49 AM by autorank
January 6, 2005 Rally and March to support a challenge to the Ohio Electors

If there was ever a day that the Democratic party could have ended, it was that day. While much of white America was unaware of the outrages of the election, black America was finely tuned to the issue. This was speak up or hold your piece forever more for the Democrats. If Boxer had not spoken, there would have been an internal revold like none before it in the Democratic party. The Congressional Black Caucus was going to the well for the second time. A zero gesture (like the ass sitters in 2000) would have been an insult to great to bear. As it turned out, Boxer protested and Reid and 12 other Senators supported her vigorously in the debate. This was enough to show that there was still some collective memory and fight in the party. It was a close call.


No naysayers that day. It was a united front.


Ohio activists arrived by the busload.


The great Rev. Moss, initial litigant for the recount (deceased, RIP).


Prophetic poster & no, that's not me.


She understood.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eve_was_framed Donating Member (288 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-30-05 12:49 AM
Response to Original message
98. just don't tell Kerry, he'll deny the conversation yet again!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-30-05 03:38 AM
Response to Reply #98
100. LOL...The people, not the politicians are the guardians of democracy.
DUer Land Shark uttered those words, well not those exactly...I cleaned them up a bit but his wisdom is clear yet not widely accepted.

The politicians have their own agenda. I was quite taken by Paul Hackett and the Ohio 2nd race (an article I wrote about it is on my profile as home-page). He was a great candidate and it sure looked like something lousy happened in his campaign. Guess what, he chose not to challenge it. He was quite gracious in receiving a ton of information from DUers on possible fraud but he didn't challenge. He probably couldn't produce a smoking gun and chose to move on. Now he's running for US Senate, knows all about fraud, and is poised to win.

He was making a decision as a politician and it was a very good one.

We, on the other hand, are the ones with the real interest in free and fair elections, that's the top priority for many of us. Nobody will do that job but us, we have to be "in their face" at all times on this. I'm in organized politics lately and raise these issues frequently. Why not, it's my country, state, etc. People generally agree with election integrity issues but winning the next one is the order of the day. That's fine. The candidates do their thing, we do ours and ours is about fairness, freedom to vote, and transparent elections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freedomfries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-30-05 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #100
102. kick for reinstating TIA
Let's make 2006 the Happy New Year of TIA re-inauguration!
Thanks for a great post autorank!
:yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eve_was_framed Donating Member (288 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-30-05 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #100
106. I'm glad that you and others are working hard for free and fair
elections. This gives me hope and gives me pause not to be so facetious. I heard on Air America just the other day that nothing had been done by the Democrats to change things or to ensure 2006 is fair. Upon hearing such, the hopelessness and despair I was left with could not be abated until now, Thank you for the reprieve! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-30-05 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #106
107. Thankyou for the nice words. DNC is hearing from people on
a regular basis. Their telemarketers have a scripted response when people say, "Why should I give if you're doing nothing about election fraud?" It's a weak response so they're getting blasted. Somebody will jump on this and then there will be tons of concern before the election, lots of hand wringing by people who have not listened. That is the actual hope -- enough attention to stop the cheating, bright sunshine on the process. People in Eastern Europe stop the crooks by organizing and saying they'll catch any fraud. We can do it too.

Cheers!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
angrynwhite Donating Member (19 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 11:52 AM
Response to Original message
115. Still stuck in '04...?
Unfortunately, we can only affect the future.

06 is going to be a good year! :party:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #115
116. You predict the future by the past. I worked in VA 2005, great stuff...
except in the AG race where a recount was sorely needed. WE didn't get it. The judges wouldn't allow mechanical recounting of optical scan ballots or physical recounting. What utter bullshit. I wanted to see us take not only Governor, where I actively campaigned for Kaine, but AG and the rest. We probably did but were denied a recount.

I'm not stuck in '04, I'm insisting that our party recognize how we got screwed and make sure it doesn't happen again. I think VA '05 A.G. race, the special election in OH where pre voting majorities of 60-30% (approx) for two key election ballot initiatives flipped exactly almost to negative 60-30 a few days after the poll and, not coincidentally, a few days after Scty. of State Blackwell had 1/2 th estate fitted with "new" Diebold touch screens.

We can just smash the Republicans in '06 but not without a clear path that includes great issues, a coordinated national campaign, and pre positioned election integrity people telling the BoE's and vendors that we'll be on them like white on rice if there is even a hit of any bull shit. That might be a great donation Kerry could make for his left over vorting rights funds.

We agree, but nobody's stuck. I want 2006 to kill and I'll tell you, it felt great to see our Democrat moderate-progressive candidate just whip ass in Virginia. He won 53%=46% (by memory) but it was even more of an ass kicking because a moderate Republican candidate (totally opposed to the Rep. party candidate) got 2%. That's 54%-46% and that's something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-02-06 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #115
121. Can you affect the future? Did you fix the diebolds yet? magical thinking
won't take you very far, ya know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-03-06 01:46 AM
Response to Original message
123. Thanks autorank. All the best to TruthisAll, who is sorely missed here.
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 May 27th 2017, 05:03 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) 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