vote volunteers, and from the many Tom, Dick and Jane co-workers or family member who were voting for the first time specifically to oust the Bush Cartel, from every set of data that statisticians look at, and in addition from opinion polls, in which only 49% of Americans approved of Bush on his Inauguration Day (!), only 45% approve of him now, and disapproval of every major Bush policy, foreign and domestic, is up in the 60% to 70% range--a huge "vote of no confidence" that has been consistent over time, polling methods and questions, and polling organizations.
And what is the evidence that Bush won? Electronic central tabulators run on secret, proprietary software, owned and controlled by major Bush partisans?
That's it. There is no other evidence. (--unless you get down to the precinct level, where there is already evidence of fraud, including inexplicable skews to Bush in electronic voting, with precinct checking not yet complete, and with Republican officials having blockaded it in Ohio).
There was no groundswell for Bush. His audiences were highly selected and vetted. And the Republicans lost, and lost big, in new voter registration in 2004.
Some of our evidence may be necessarily inferential (because the election was so non-transparent and unverifiable)--with astronomical odds against a Bush win, but still in the realm of statistics--but it stacks up very well, indeed, against the sole evidence of a Bush win: his buddies' secret vote count.
And the whole of our evidence comes from many sources: numerous Ph.D.s, several different expert statistical teams, several different statisticians here at DU, the Conyers hearings, the EIRs (including items like the touchscreens always changing Kerry votes to Bush votes, and all other machine malfunctions and vote suppression favoring Bush and not Kerry), two small but disinterested political parties, many different expert and citizen groups/reports on the perils of electronic voting, two different exit polls (national and state by state), numerous different opinion polls by different news organizations using different methods (on the disapproval of Bush), and an untold number of anecdotal reports of enthusiasm for Kerry and/or for ousting Bush.
I repeat my slogan to freepers and deniers: Prove Bush won.
If the election was valid, shouldn't that be quite simple and easy to do?
To those who fuss about "absolute proof" and "smoking guns" and say that the Bush Cartel is innocent until proven guilty, I say: Given a non-transparent election system, those in power ARE guilty until proven innocent. That's the nature of democracy. A non-transparent election is NOT VALID--not in Stalinist Russia, and not here. And those who try to fob off a non-transparent election for the real thing are evading and falsifying the most fundamental element of democracy: the very means by which the people hold their leaders accountable.
And one more thing: IF the Bush Cartel had wanted an honest election, why did they block the paper trail provision of HAVA and not let it out of committee for a vote? That's a no-brainer, when it comes to honest, transparent elections. Unlike some others, I don't consider these fascists to be brainless. They quite deliberately blocked a paper trail because they DIDN'T WANT an honest election, and they very much DID WANT the rest of us to have to dig the true story out with inferential evidence.
I have often made this point about INTENT, and I'm making it again--because we so often lose site of it.
They COULD HAVE HAD a transparent election that was a model of democracy. They DELIBERATELY sabotaged all efforts to achieve that. Why?
I think the answer is obvious: Bush/Cheney could not win an honest election.