Let's Get it Straight: Bush did not win the 2004 Election Either!

[kpete]

Let's Get it Straight: Bush did not win the 2004 Election Either!
By Bill Hare
07/09/2008 01:25:28 AM EST

(Part 1 of a 3-part series)
It has happened so often recently that the point needs to be addressed.

A few weeks ago I heard two well intentioned liberals on a television show hosted by one of them attempt to comprehend how George W. Bush had "won" the 2004 election despite a first term of failure and low polling figures from the public.

The show's host explained to his guest that the election was ultimately decided on "fear" and that the critical swing bloc that decided the election ultimately concluded that, despite any dislikes for Bush or misgivings about his record, that the Republicans were a safer bet during a period of potential peril than John Kerry and the Democrats.

...................

As someone who studied the media aspect of the campaign and paid particularly close attention to the polling, especially prior to the election, and who spent Election Night on the Political Strategy site analyzing the results and attempting to forecast trends, I will use the same phrase employed by a writer on the Zogby Poll site the day after the election:

"I smell a rat!"

The result of Bush securing a reported 51% of the vote to 48% for John Kerry resulted in a 6-point difference from exit polls, which had the same percentages with the candidates reversed.

In order to comprehend how staggering a differential this was it is necessary to analyze presidential election forecasts from the first Gallup Poll figures from the 1948 election to the present...


much more at:
http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2008/7/9/12528/99147

[Mike Nelson]

1. He actually did BETTER; but, Bush had four years of rigging.

You are correct!

[BOSSHOG]

But rush and sean say he won in 2000 and 2004

Too many beers this Friday afternoon. I guess my subject line proves your point.

why do conservatives fear the fairness doctrine and swearing to tell the truth? Could it be that many of them are child fucking criminals? Please "patriotic christians" set me straight.

[Cleita]

2. So true but we have had almost eight years to fix what's wrong with

our easy- to- cheat- on election system and nothing has been done, other than a few voting machines being decertified in some states. I think our elected officials like things as they are.

[OnTheOtherHand]

3. Part 1 isn't much help

Part 1 concludes:

The result of studying presidential elections between 1948 and 1972, with technology and methodology continually improving, was that with the exceptions of the first two races and disadvantaged by closing shop early in the first instance and timidity in the second, the net result of polling demonstrated consistent accuracy in the races measured.

OK. And most of the final 2004 pre-election polls showed Bush slightly ahead.

:shrug:

[rosesaylavee]

6. Polls issued by whom?

Right wing mouthpieces like Gallup etc. Polls are not necessarily as unbiased and scientific as we once thought they were. Maybe Zogby is ok. I think there are few college-based pollsters who try to be unbiased... but I wouldn't give much credence to the pollsters at the moment.

[OnTheOtherHand]

11. maybe not, but that is standing the OP on its head

At least as far as I can tell. Isn't it all about how accurate the polls are?

I guess it's about how accurate they were up to 1972, so we can wait and see.

[The Doctor.]

8. I have to admire your tenacity...

Legitimizing the '04 election in the face of so much evidence to the contrary must be like a full time job.

Anyone who dedicates themselves to such a fight without reimbursement or reward must have very high personal standards of integrity.

I salute you.

:patriot:

[OnTheOtherHand]

12. huh?

Is there anything I could post that you would not reduce to "legitimizing the '04 election"? Do you even pause to consider the arguments?

If you have nothing on-topic to say, why post?

[The Doctor.]

13. Ummmm...

Well, if you weren't consistently making the case that it was possible or even likely that Bush won 'legitimately', then I suppose I might not have a reason to think that you were consistently making the case that it was possible or even likely that Bush won legitimately.

I know... it's a real leap of logic for me to make such a silly assumption.


Meanwhile, topic of the OP is the stolen election, you chimed in, and I just wanted to tell you I'm impressed with your consistency and tenacity.

:yourock:


That's pretty much on-topic.

[OnTheOtherHand]

14. no, it isn't

Do you have anything to say about the OP and/or my response to it?

If you think it's impossible that Bush won legitimately, you're welcome to argue that, but that wasn't the subject of the OP, nor of my post.

[The Doctor.]

27. Just how heavily medicated are you? Here's what you said;

"If you think it's impossible that Bush won legitimately, you're welcome to argue that, but that wasn't the subject of the OP"

Here's the title of the OP;

"Let's Get it Straight: Bush did not win the 2004 Election Either!"


I find it hard to believe you can be taken seriously.

[OnTheOtherHand]

29. try to convince me that you actually read past the title

Strange as you may find this, I'm not interested in bald, unsupported assertions. Maybe you think the title asserts that "it's impossible that Bush won legitimately"; I can't tell whether it means that or not, and I don't care. I'm interested in arguments and evidence.

The basic argument of the essay, best as I can make it out, is that we know that Bush lost because there was a 6-point exit poll discrepancy -- and in order to understand how telling that is, "it is necessary to analyze presidential election forecasts from the first Gallup Poll figures from the 1948 election to the present." Part 1 got through 1972. I addressed the substance. Naive, I know. I'm just a cockeyed optimist.

[The Doctor.]

33. So the question of whether Bush won legitimately is off topic... Gotcha.

Forget the fact that the OP is about Bush not necessarily winning legitimately.

Brother, you're the king of distraction.

Here's some 'on topic' for you;

Name for me a time in history where results were skewed 6% from exit poll results in a legitimate election with paper ballots.

That means; an instance where it was determined beyond a reasonable doubt that the results were accurate and reflected the vote totals, yet the exit polls were off by 6%.

You seem to have the notion that you're an expert, and I'll go along with that. That being the case, you should have such an example at your fingertips.

There is a reasonable doubt that Ohio was a legitimate victory for Bush, the fact that recounts were manipulated and suppressed only reinforces the likelyhood that Ohio was heavily rigged

[OnTheOtherHand]

34. I think I understand the disconnect

You started by accusing me of "legitimizing the '04 election." You then amplified that as "making the case that it was possible or even likely that Bush won 'legitimately.'"

OK, I do think that it's possible and even likely that Bush won 'legitimately,' in some non-trivial sense of the word. But I understand the subject of the thread to be the claim that historical analysis of polls somehow demonstrates that Bush lost. That is distinct from whether Bush actually lost.

What ticks me off is that I read the article cited in the OP, offered a reasoned response to it, and your reaction to that was all about my supposed efforts to "legitimiz(e) the '04 election" and not the substance of either the OP or my response. That perplexes me as much as ever. Do you care what happened in '04, or not?

Name for me a time in history where results were skewed 6% from exit poll results in a legitimate election with paper ballots.

Lever machines have been in widespread use at least since the 1930s -- of course, New York is their last bastion. What exit polls are we supposed to look at?! Where is it that you think that paper ballots predominated until 2004 or so? Or if that isn't your point, pray tell, what is it?

[Wassabi]

15. He's Just Tired Of Annoying Citizens On Hobby Horses

This is the great Patriot Mark Lindeman who teaches at Bard College.

He has a dog in the hunt. He has staked his personal reputation on this exit poll thingie. His #1 supporter here, Febble, isn't even an American. She's Elisabeth Liddle from England.

He has been involved with something called The Verified Voting Foundation. The VVF seems to be working for paper trails and limited audits for electronic machines.

In a way, Mr. Lindeman does make money off of this topic. I mean, he's got that Bard College paper. However, there is no way to prove if he is paid to post on the internet. It can perhaps only be stated that he is a prolific force on the net as regards to whitewashing the great possibility that the last two presidential elections were stolen. He is also HudsonValleyMark at DailyKos. At Kos, most of the posters in this forum would be considered as "conspiracy nutters." But then again, Kos was in the CIA and was a big fan of Ronald Reagan. Go figure.


In this video below, the great patriot Mark Lindeman speaks of annoying citizens who get on hobby horses.


http://youtube.com/watch?v=WWLjGfSzfrw



Mr. Lindeman, were you paid for your efforts with the VVF?

I salute you too, Mr. Mark Lindeman. :patriot:

[Ellipsis]

16. Welcome to DU. Don't be shy or anything...

[Wassabi]

19. Was I Rude? I Feel No Malice Towards This Person

Like most Americans, I simply want truth and justice.

It'll be nice if I'm allowed to stay and make posts. I have a good idea what is going on with the world, including election fraud and how it is portrayed on the internet.

Is there free speech here? Or is one supposed to walk on eggshells until they have 1000 posts and have learned how to comply? I'm willing to drink the hemlock.

__________________________________
the people united will never be defeated

[Ellipsis]

30. Nice post Socrates!

I'm certainly not your Meletus.

Your welcome to say whatever you want provided you abide by the DU rules. OTOH has been a target as of late for his posturing, I'm hoping the soap opera's been played out now.

Lest we not denigrate the individual because you disagree with the character of the content, especially if it's off topic of the OP.

That's all.

Welcome.
:P

[Wassabi]

41. Thanks

Hi. I've always been a big fan of Socrates. He stood up to all the big players in Athens and showed them that they were not as important as they thought they were. The story of Socrates is crucial to every American, especially with Canada turning on us a bit. I have no problem with folks who have had enough and have left the country for greener pastures. There were the Lost Generation writers, the ex-patriots.

Personally, I know in my gut that I am an American and am willing to fight on our behalf to show the world that we are good people. To the rest of the world: We did not vote this person in. We do not condone torture and illegal wars. We despise people like Rove and Gonzales who portray us as fascists. We are not.

Maybe I will not be as strong as Socrates was and will eventually leave for Ireland. But for right now, I am right here in solidarity with all the other honorable Americans who are saying enough is enough.

I do believe there needs to be rules on forums. They simply need to be applied fairly across the board in the light of day.

[Ellipsis]

50. "Crito, we owe a cock to Asclepius. Please, don't forget to pay the debt."

RIP

[tiptoe]

39. These might interest you, Wassabi:

2004 Election Fraud Analysis: Confirmation of a Kerry Landslide

2004-2006 Election Fraud Analytics: Response to the TruthIsAll FAQ    — updated July 12, 2008
(also here for other context)

This is the classic DU "Game" thread in which above author was banned and OTOH was forced to make all kinds of implausible assumptions to explain how Bush won by 3m votes:
a "game" about the 2004 election
(also click the 'Game' at top menu here: Election Fraud...Guide, FF/IE6 for vids )

"They finally agreed in the Democratic Underground Game thread that the Final NEP Bush/Gore weights were impossible and came up with a new set of feasible weights. But they had to compensate for the change to feasible weights in order to match the recorded vote by inflating the Bush vote shares to implausible levels. This was necessary even though the shares were previously inflated in the Final with impossible weights in order to match the recorded vote.

It was a feeble, last-ditch Hail Mary pass to justify the Bush ‘mandate’. They had to deal with an inconvenient truth: the Final National Exit Poll inflated the Bush tally by more than 4 million votes. But even though the weights were mathematically impossible, the exit-pollsters had no choice but to use them hoping that no one would notice. And so they lost the ‘Game’. Their use of implausible vote shares meant that they could not come up with one believable Bush win scenario".

[OnTheOtherHand]

40. OMG, the mathematically impossible weights!

tiptoe, I could try to explain this to you, but you generally don't stick around long after the drive-by copy-and-pastes. Let me know if you're interested.

[Wassabi]

42. Yes; I've seen some of this

I have been a forum hound the last couple years. I must be up front. I am good at math, but when it comes to statistics and whatnot {geometry too!}, I am useless. I do think the exit polls show that Kerry won.

Some people simply do not realise that there are limitations to the scientific method. Please don't get me wrong, the scientific method or perhaps simply truth is a noble pursuit. Yet, I am not into this game of "debunker" versus "believer." While I agree with Kant's critique of pure reason, I don't believe that means all is lost, that everything is an enigma.

I love the Democratic Underground. I like the way it looks. Over a year or so ago I got used to how the format works. I love to devour archives.

I will say this to DU. They need to be very careful in how they ban certain people, for example with the person you mention. By deleting whatever took place, there is no way to know what happened. The same thing happened with another person, the mathematician lady. I hear a lot of bad things about her. I've even been told in emails by a prominent "election integrity" activist that this person is unstable.

Those are ad hominems! There is no way for the reader to decide, when the alleged offending posts are scrubbed. I'm just asking DU to have a sincere discussion amongst themselves as how to ensure fairness on this board.

Things happen in the heat of battle. We humans can be very fragile sometimes. Other times, we can show amazing capacities for empathy and insight.

Here's an analogy. Say in basketball or any other sport, sometimes a bad player from one team will be asked to provoke a fight with the best or one of the best players on the other team. That is done, because if both players get tossed, the team with the worse player ends up with the advantage.

Yes, attack the message but not the messenger. Finally, I have learned that even if it seems certain things are allowed, that one cannot take it for granted that such leeway is in effect. So my skin has hardened, and I now realise that what's good for the goose may not be good for the gander. To translate, I have learned that even if it seems a bit of personal attacking is allowed to seep in, that I cannot afford to return any similar type of snark.

Thus, I am saving screenshots of alll my posts here, just in case I am ts'ed. I don't want to be. I do want to believe in the Democratic Underground. Yet, I am forced to save all my posts just in case. Then God forbid I am tossed for no good reason, I will have the proof of such an injustice. This is not an attack on DU or anyone. This is one person's sincere open message to the ptb's here that this type of thing is not good for the credibility of a forum. If one is gonna toss someone, at least have the gonads to leave up in plain view the posts that allegedly brought on the decision for expulsion.

[The Doctor.]

17. Well... isn't that obtrusive.

Thanks anywho.

[Wassabi]

20. No Problem

I know you from another forum. I think you're a good person. There's another video out there where Lindeman talks about how exciting global warming is. That might be taking it out of context, but it is what he said.

I see a lot of leeway given to certain posters at DU. With others, all we get is message deleted. One never knows what was said to cause the tombstone.

Please Democratic Underground: Do not tombstone people for no good reason.


The bottom line was Ohio was hurting the worst economically. Bush was on a serious downslide. Kerry was no McGovern who could get slimed as a hippie communist or however Nixon ended up with the landslide.

Plus with all the new registrations, the votes were leaning Democratic. Lindeman cannot prove that Bush probably won the election. Others can prove that Kerry probably won the election.

[The Doctor.]

21. So you think.

Another forum?

Really?

All I have is a myspaece page under this name.

Then there's the Mechwarrior profile....

[Wassabi]

23. Ok; Sorry for that mistake Dr_eldritch

This is why we need freedom of association to work things out. You reminded me of someone with the same avatar who also has posted on global warming and election integrity topics.

[The Doctor.]

25. Ah... gotcha.

Yeah, I'm not the only one on the internet with avatars. ;D I actually do post elsewhere, and under other names (I was funnin' with ya'), but I don't like to leave trails from one profile to the next for a number of good reasons. I can say with certainty that none of my other profiles have this particular avatar right now, I can also say that it comes from not an entirely unpopular bit of anime, so it's quite possible others have it. Also, like-minded people will sometimes share tastes in music and TV as well... so it would make sense that someone else who shared my views might also appreciate the particular series my avatar comes from.

Besides, even if I were this other poster, it's unlikely I'd admit it.


K? ;)

[OnTheOtherHand]

22. gosh

I never got Brad Friedman to properly explain this "dog in the hunt" crap, only to repeat it. I won't expect any better from you.

If you disagree with something in one of my papers, you could state it. No matter what you think happened in 2004, there wouldn't be much point in my pretending to think that exit polls are trustworthy in light of the evidence that they aren't (except to save me the time of trying to explain this point repeatedly). If you still think that exit polls are trustworthy, it would make more sense to argue the point than to complain that I have a "dog in the hunt" because I've marshaled arguments to the contrary.

Yes, I believe that some citizens can be annoying. We could go back and look at what I said in context, but frankly, it wasn't very interesting. I don't think that any of the election integrity activists in the room construed the comment as an attack. Are they all on your enemies list, or are you more selective? :shrug:

No, I'm not paid to post here, nor was I paid (by VVF or otherwise) to attend the audit summit.

Now, again, do you have anything to say about the subject of this thread?

[The Doctor.]

26. Yet you can't seem to explain how it is that exit polls have a higher reliability rate

where there are paper ballots.

Paper ballots- high reliability.
Electronic voting- low reliability.
Paperless E-voting- no way to know a damn thing.

That's been the pattern these last several years. As a result, people like yourself point to the exit poll discrepancies in DRE/Optiscan areas and blame the polls rather than the system.

[OnTheOtherHand]

31. evidence?

WTF do you mean by a "reliability rate," and what is your evidence over "these last several years"? (Or was that a change in topic?)

Presumably you're talking about the table in the January 2005 evaluation report. Actually, this table was discussed even in the report itself: controlling for urban/rural, there is no statistically significant difference between hand count and other precincts, so there is nothing more to explain. Steve Freeman doesn't like it, but it's true.

I note that you don't even mention lever machines. It blew my mind when I saw that Andi Novick filed an amicus brief about why New York should keep its lever machines, 'supported' by statements about the exit polls -- when lever machines had the biggest discrepancies of all in 2004. Do you think that the lever machines were massively hacked in New York in 2004? I admit that I don't for a minute think that Kerry's high-teens lead in the polls surged to 31 points on Election Day, but massive lever hacking brought the margin back down to 17 points.

[The Doctor.]

35. You sure love to get hung up on phrases.

By 'reliability rate', your highness, I mean 'the rate of reliability of exit polls relative to the voting system used'.

Notice I didn't say 'pre-election polling'.


So, you're saying that NY showed large discrepancies between results and exit polls? That's interesting. I'd love some information, and would appreciate any links. Thanks.

[OnTheOtherHand]

38. well...

It's frankly frustrating to try to discuss a subject with someone who seems to perceive me as a blinkered denialist (at best), but also doesn't seem to know much about the specific subject.

We have no "reliability rate" here, although I suppose (if we had the data) we could calculate the proportion(s) of precincts with WPMs outside the nominal margins of error, or something like that. We have mean and median WPMs.

Yes, I realize that you didn't mention pre-election polling. I mentioned it because it has bearing on my assessment of the New York exit poll. I've been told over and over that people like me just assume that the election results were accurate; I don't. So when the exit poll indicates that Kerry won New York by over 30 points, I want some basis to assess that indication other than personal gut judgment.

You can find the Edison/Mitofsky evaluation report here. It's the basis for much of the exit poll discussion since January 2005, including Freeman's book. Pages 21-22 give the Best Geo and Composite errors by state; pages 32-33 give three different WPM measures by state.

You may also be interested in this, although it's limited by the state level of analysis.

[Wassabi]

32. Hi Mark Lindeman :)

Brad can speak for himself. Personally, I am starting to wonder about this whole Clint Curtis thing. There were no touch screens in 2000, right? What were the exact questions of the polygraph he passed? Curtis worked for NASA {a military branch}. He was a life-long Republican, but now he is a Democrat? I know, this whole thing can be information overload. But my point is, either Curtis is for real, or the whole thing has been staged. A lot of the internet appears to be manipulated by astroturfers. Have you ever heard of Netvocates, Mr. Lindeman?

You see Mr. Lindeman, some of us are into the truth no matter what it is.

The idea of the "dog in the hunt" to me means that you have staked your professional reputation on downplaying election fraud. I think you have taken your narrow view and tried to jam it down everyone's throat through the evoking of authority.

This isn't just about the exit polls. The economy in Ohio was hurting. Remember how Bush talked it down as soon as he was anointed in 2000 by the fascist Supreme Court? How about all the new voter registrations? What about all those interest rate drops and tax cuts for the rich which turned around all that Clinton had accomplished in balancing the budget?

As a "scholar," you must have studied the emergence of the modern age, e.g. the Enlightenment. You must realise there was a divide between the positivists and the Jean-Jacques Rousseau types. But even if we were are to side with the positivists, we end up with Professor Freeman. On the surface he is the noble savage and you are the rene descartes. But the reality is he is the scientist, the authority, not yourself. You have every right to post on message boards. But so does everyone else. And just because you have your fancy degrees and connections does not mean that you are the one on the right side of history.

Who are we to believe on exit polls, a mathematician or a political scientist? Liddle has no math background either, correct? Isn't her field psychology?

What about Steven Hertzberg? Where did he ever get the qualifications to run his Election Science Institute? Was it from his experience with the Department of Defense?

Why is the Steven Hertzberg story being covered up? Did you know he ended up at a mickey mouse "conspiracy" forum? Did you know that the forum he was at has declared that Brad is CIA influenced, while Bev Harris has been called a 9/11 CIA rat? Hertzberg did multiple interviews with the webmaster there. Why is that not news to the election integrity community?

Did you know that Hertzberg ran websites devoted to Ron Paul? Did you know he had the gall to endorse Matt Damschroder right on this very website? Did you know that his brother Robert, who once ran for mayor of Los Angeles, was one of the first to sponsor a bill for the funding of electronic voting technology? Can anyone say conflict of interest?

People are tired of predictable threads which seem to have their fair share of manufactured convolution and limited hangouts. Can you not use your academic imagination and understand that more likely than not Bush has never been elected? You can't prove he won fair and square. The evidence, all of it, not just exit polls, points to the fact that more likely than not, Bush never won squat.

Or look at it this way. Bush is obviously not a bright person. He is the last person qualified to be President. I doubt he could even run a fast food chain. This was common knowledge that he was an idiot. People knew how he fleeced the Texas taxpayers with the baseball stuff. People know that he was the el busto at Arbusto. Why can't you just lighten up and admit that yeah, Bush probably never won squat fair and square. I understand you Mr. Lindeman. I do not hate you. Your snarky attacks do nothing to my now hardened skin. People are just telling you to basically put the elitist snark to the side and be real.

You are a public figure. You are on a liberal forum all the time spinning the same comments. Have you ever been a registered Republican? I heard that you were. If so, then why are you on this board? This place is supposed to be for people on the left. You appear to be on the right. I will apologise if you can direct me to any of your writings exposing the political corruption of the last eight years or of any other proof that you are a liberal. I simply don't see it.

The excessive snarkiness is uncalled for. People don't like to be talked down to. That is precisely what you do. You did it in the video.

Don't you have books to write, students to meet, and articles to research?

Are you actually saying you are an election integrity activist? You seem more like an apologist for a criminal government.

Do you have other ideas to share with the world? Do you think the Administration has comitted war crimes? How do you feel about the lack of the rule of law in America? Should Karl Rove be prosecuted for having Siegelman end up in prison?

It's very difficult to believe you are a Democrat.

You should lighten up and stop trying to forcefeed your one track idea.

Look at it this way. If what you are saying is so true, why dis there such a need to keep repeating it over and over again? Why not just leave the "conspiracy nutters" alone?

There is much more to life than exit polls, Mr. Lindeman. There are many more questions that need to be addressed than your one-trick pony enigma projection.

In conclusion, I think election integrity activists should be wary of groups like the Verified Voting Foundation. Paper receipts on electronic machines is not the answer.

Hand counted paper ballots are the answer. How come our evil government has all this money to char Iraqi babies and bury Iraqi soldiers alive, but there isn't enough money to have hand counted paper ballots? Money should not be an issue when it comes to making sure our elections are legit.

Please show us Mr. Mark Lindeman why we should believe in you as a fellow progressive. You're awfully quiet except for when it comes to exit polls. It's an unsettling quietude. No one likes to get played. You all got played by Steven Hertzberg. That story continues to get buried. I wonder why.

[OnTheOtherHand]

36. Hi Wassabi :)

You tell me that you're into the truth no matter what it is. I don't believe you. Sorry, but I've been burned too many times.

Freeman's Ph.D. is in organizational dynamics; mine is in political science. But it's at least arguable that Freeman is no more out of field than Liddle is. She just does better work, in my opinion. At the end of the day, some of us find it useful to assess the arguments.

Do you think that pretty much everyone in political science is in on this conspiracy, or whatever it is? Or just the people who actually try to explain their positions?

"Wassabi," I really can't afford to care whether you believe in me as a fellow progressive. I have no reason to believe in you as a fellow progressive. Come to think of it, I have no reason to believe in you at all. And yet, here we are. Let me know if you're interested in discussing something substantive.

[Wassabi]

43. Thanks for the response

I was under the impression that Freeman is a mathematician. I've stated that before, and no one has said otherwise. Clearly yourself and Febble are not. Febble {Liddle} isn't even American!

I think we will have to agree to disagree. Dialogue is a two-way street. Obviously, we are having some kind of personality clash. I was hoping that even though we don't see eye to eye on many things, that at least we could have tried to find something in common to have a bit of conversation.

I was hoping to get some feedback on the Steven Hertzberg situation. You talk of being burned, and we have all been there. I find it curious that you have no interest in the real Hertzberg story. I realise this is buried information. But for yourself and to the world, there is a big story to him, one that is unknown and shouldn't be.

Hertzberg promoted himself as a progressive. He built up something called Votewatch which eventually evolved into the Election Science Institute. He was even here for well over 300 posts. He made it seem like he was a Democrat or at least progressive enough to fit the criteria for posting at the DU.

So it turns out he is a big fan of Ron Paul, at least on the surface. His big claim to fame as regards to election reform was his conclusion, very similar to yours, that although there are some glitches here and there with the way we vote, that all in all, nothing was stolen. He even, I believe, took it a step further and declared that people were generally happy with the way the process went in Ohio 2004.

I thought maybe you or someone else would have some insight into the Clint Curtis story. I never really looked into it until recently. I was a big fan of the person well-known for getting that story out. So I trusted him, and as there are a million things going on in the world, it is important that we find people we can trust to free us up to look into other aspects. That's called working together.

Unfortunately, this person has become a dead end as regards to exposing the Hertzberg story, except for some very limited lip service.

Here is something I found a few months ago, which I find very shocking. Can anyone say conflict of interest as regards to Steven hertzberg?

HTML Link
pdf version:
http://www.csac.counties.org/publications/bulletin/2001_17.pdf

May 17, 2001

On May 16, AB 56, by Assembly Speaker Robert Hertzberg, was placed on the Assembly Appropriation Committee’s Suspense file. This bill would require the Department of Information Technology to award grants to counties, using a 3-1 matching formula, for the purchase of updated voting systems. Specifically, it would appropriate $300 million from the State General Fund to the Department for this purpose. All counties are urged to submit letters of support to the Assembly Appropriations Committee as soon as possible

You see, this is somewhat related to the greatest flaw in the Clint Curtis story. Clint said he was asked by Feeney people to develop a code by which to flip votes from touch screen computers. Unfortunately, he says that took place before the 2000 election. Back then there was no uproar for touch screen voting. That happened after all the stuff pertaining to the chads.

It's as if that whole Clint Curtis story was scripted. I think it was meant to make no sense to those who looked into it, to be some sort of strawman, a muddying of the waters so to speak. I never looked into it. I took the story at face value and put it to the back of my noggin. It was only after I kept seeing this Clint Curtis name show up, that I decided to look deeper into it.

There are a lot of Republicans who have mysteriously changed party loyalty. The #1 head scratcher is probably Arianna Huffington. On the flip side is Christopher Hitchens who did the opposite, as he went from the progressive side to the fascist party.

I find it hard to believe that Clint Curtis is a Democrat. I have been a lifelong liberal from Massachusetts. I am proud that we were the only state to vote for McGovern over Nixon. People do not change like this overnight, imho, without some kind of self-serving agenda.

By the way, Curtis has worked for the military, just like S. Hertzberg. I count NASA as being part of the military. Curtis, on his web page, has called for a strong military and a revitalisation of NASA. People might not realise it, but NASA and others concerned with the atmosphere are up to a lot of shenanigans. There are many problems facing this country and the world, one of them being the militarisation and tampering with space.

Oh yeah, Curtis also worked for Exxon-Mobil. Sweet. I don't trust him or that polygraph he passed. If I had to theorise, I believe that Feeney and Curtis are probably deep down on the same team.

As for Hertzberg and his shenanigans concerning known disinformation dispenser "Fintan Dunne," that is very troubling. His support for Ron Paul and Damschroder is very unsettling. That he whitewashed the Ohio 2004 election fraud the same. That his brother was one of the first to push for funding for new electoral technology after the 2000 debacle, imho, reeks as a kind of smoking gun.

Thanks Democratic Underground for letting me have my say. My intentions are good, and I seek to play by the rules of fairness, logic, and good sources.

[OnTheOtherHand]

44. a few things

I misstated the name of Freeman's Ph.D. -- it's in Organization Studies. He works (as far as I know) at the Center for Organizational Dynamics. I have no idea why you think Freeman is more qualified to talk about either exit polls or statistics than a political scientist or a psychologist. Perhaps you don't know much about political science or psychology. I have even less idea why it should matter that Febble isn't American. Are you a nativist, or what?

But setting the three or four of us aside, I hope you realize that there are many, many political scientists, pollsters, mathematicians, you name it who don't think the exit polls show that Kerry won. So if you choose to believe Freeman over everyone who disagrees with him, I hope that you will think critically about the reasons for your choice. Not that you have to proceed by counting heads: I'm happy to discuss substance, even though you protest that you're hopeless at math (or something like that -- I'm not looking upthread right now).

I think you're overplaying Hertzberg's role in the 2004 debate, and I further think that you are cherry-picking statements to disagree with, without even stating grounds for disagreement. I don't see how arguments can get any more purely ad hominem than that. Maybe Hertzberg is a rat fink. I don't have evidence of it, and regardless, it doesn't seem to have much bearing on the election. (I myself am not a Ron Paul fan.) Again, if you'd like to discuss substance, no one is stopping you.

I don't think Clint Curtis is very reliable; there are much better reasons not to trust DREs, such as the direct evidence that they are hackable. I have at least one friend who has talked with Curtis and is convinced that he is legit (which isn't to say that he is liberal).

[Wassabi]

45. Ok: Good Luck Chief

I apologize for my mistake thinking Freeman is a mathematician. I try to correct such things when I can. I try not to make such mistakes to begin with, but it happens.

With all due respect sir, I have accomplished what I set out to do. I am glad that people can go to the video linked to above and see who you are for themselves. Perhaps you think I am just another Johnny from Burger King. That is your choice.

{Side note- The "Johnny from BK" is from a Keith Foulke quote. i have nothing against any worker, although as a vegetarian, I do not respect meat is murder restaurants.}


I put a lot of time and effort into my research and postings. I have tons of data on Hertzberg. The most glaring fact is that he was a prolific poster at "Fintan Dunne's" disinformation BreakForNews website. Not only was Hertzberg calling anthropogenic global warming a hoax, not only was he promoting Ron Paul and Damshroder, he was also involved in all kinds of strange postings making him appear to be a right woos left astroturfer.


As for Professor Freeman:

http://www.mastermediaspeakers.com/stevefreeman/index.html

• Freeman and Bleifuss present their case with scientific precision in clear and easy to understand language. Advance readers like the distinguished mathematician John Allen Paulos are already calling Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen? a “careful and judicious book” in recognition of the effort of the authors to rise above partisan politics.

Steven Freeman's analyses, together with a study by the University of California, Berkeley's sociology and demography departments, are recognized to have been the first serious attempts to examine the validity of the outcome of the 2004 presidential election.

Freeman holds a Ph.D. from MIT's Sloan School of Management. He is on the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Organizational Dynamics, where he teaches research methods and survey design (a domain that includes polling.) He has received four national awards for his research.

Your fixation on exit polls is quite telling. I'm not sure how being an election fraud debunker makes you qualified to post on this forum, but so be it. Have a nice life.

:patriot:

[OnTheOtherHand]

46. jeepers

If anyone is interested in my actual opinions, by all means they may take the time to watch the videos you trolled through. Your misrepresentation of my views on global warming is one of the strangest things I've ever seen. As for my views on audits, they aren't secret. I rather assumed you were counting on people not taking the time to see what I actually said. Regardless, again, I don't see how your approach could be any more ad hominem.

Freeman's "national awards," as far as I can tell, are all for business case studies. They don't qualify (or disqualify) him to write on election forensics. They certainly don't justify ignoring everyone else who actually has relevant credentials, although no one can stop you from doing that if you wish.

"Your fixation on exit polls is quite telling." As is the way I beat my wife? :shrug:

I've given you several opportunities now to establish that you actually care what happened in 2004, but you're acting as if you're much more concerned about other things. Weirdly, one of them is me. I have to say, I'm just not that into you.

[Wassabi]

47. How Do You Get Away With Breaking The Rules?

I could probably look at your earlier posts for other examples.

Here you called me a troll.

Rule: Do not post messages that are inflammatory, extreme, divisive, incoherent, or otherwise inappropriate. Do not engage in anti-social, disruptive, or trolling behavior.

All I did was link to and comment on open source materials. I treated you with respect and did not receive the same back. People can read through my posts here. The readers can see the many good points I made that got ignored.


Now this is the crux of the big rule I think you may be subverting. The ad hominems against me don't matter. Socrates used to get treated a lot worse. It didn't mean that he was any less right than people in positions of authority who inflated their importance.

Rule: 2. Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office.


Do you support the Democatic Party, Mr. Lindeman? Have you ever been registered to the Republican Party? I'd hate to see DU get burned like it did with Steven Hertzberg. Remember that endorsement he gave for Damschroder? That's the kind of tidbit that Mr. Lindeman ignores. Same with the info about Hertzberg supporting Ron Paul or being a prolific poster on a nutjob disinfo website called BreakForNews. That website has called out Bev Harris as being a 9/11 cia rat. Hertzberg did two interviews with someone calling Bev Harris a 9/11 cia rat, plus he was a prolific poster there. But to Mr. Lindeman, this doesn't mean anything.

Have you not on occasion defended a NC Beach Girl who turns out to be Rob Pelletier of Diebold? Could you put up a copy or link to an interview you did with Leo Lincourt of the Neural Gourmet? Who have you voted for in the past? Bush or Gore? Bush or Kerry? When's the last time you were registered Republican? These should be easy questions to answer.

Can you direct us to anything at all in favor of the Democratic Party. This is the Democratic Underground. That is their rule. I for one want all Democrats in. Of course, I don't trust Pelosi too much and a bunch of the others, but I would never vote Republican. I NEVER HAVE. CAN YOU SAY THE SAME? :shrug:

[OnTheOtherHand]

48. well, no, I didn't

I characterized your behavior as "trolling through videos," which I think is a fair characterization -- tactful, really.

People can judge for themselves the respect that you have shown for me. Similarly, they can assess how many of your points and questions I've responded to and how many of mine you have.

I will respond to your Grand Inquisitor shtick one more time, as an unrequited courtesy.

1) All I did with respect to NC Beach Girl was to post a statement of fact about her (his?) posts. Are you familiar with the concept of "guilt by association"? (I guess that's a rhetorical question.)

2) Why don't you? You seem to enjoy posting links about me.

3) I voted for Nader in 2000 (I was in New York, then as now) and Kerry in 2004.

4) I am not now, nor have I ever been, a registered Republican.

[troubleinwinter]

49. If you feel

that a DU poster has broken DU rules, hit the 'alert' button shown on each post. The moderators will look into any such issue.

Suggesting that you would look at earlier posts to determine rule-breaking sounds like stalking? Maybe you should rethink that comment.

Might be better to stick to the discussion at hand rather than bringing in all sorts of other people and issues, let alone making bullshit allegations against a respected and long-time DUer.

I am prohibited from saying if I alert on your post insinuating that a DUer is a republican.

I think you should start a whole new approach to your membership at DU and stop with the Junior Hall Monitor Amateur Sleuth bullshit. Certainly not all of us see eye-to-eye on many things, but we generally attempt not to make wild-eyed, crack-pot, baseless insinuations of associations with Diebold, republicans, etc. against other members.

A word to the wise: Might not be a good approach right off the bat to call out DU moderators/administrators and policies and announce your plan to save screen shots of your posts, in the event of your banning. Kind of an odd way to introduce yourself.

Again, I suggest the 'alert' button if you feel someone acts inappropriately.

[Stevepol]

4. Amen. The exit polls make it pretty clear, along with mountains of dirty tricks

used to disenfranchise huge segments of demo voters.

[elocs]

5. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Sure, the Republicans stole the 2000 election and the Democrats were certainly the victims of that crime. So come 2004 we are all but sure that they will do it again, but we are assured that Democrats will have lawyers throughout the country to prevent this. So then in 2004 the Republicans pick our pockets again and the reaction by Democrats is, "Oh my God, we've been robbed! How could we ever have anticipated that?" The only trouble is that we didn't look so much like victims as we did feckless: feeble or ineffective. Having your pocket picked twice by the same "guy" is certainly nothing to be proud of.

It's kind of like losing a football game at the last second because of an inadvertent whistle or a call that could not be reviewed. It still goes down as a loss ever if everybody and their brother knows you actually won.

So how about this time we take the pledge that the Jews took as a result of the Holocaust: NEVER AGAIN!. Only this time let's make sure it is never again. One sure way, just like in a football game, is to be ahead by too large a margin to have the game stolen because if we cannot beat the Republicans this time I don't know when it might ever happen again.

[rosesaylavee]

7. I have seen posts here on DU still in denial that either

election was stolen. Inaction caused by people benefiting from the stolen votes as well as those too naive to think that our local and state leadership could so willingly and knowingly disenfranchise so many voters.

[elocs]

9. When Katherine Harris ran for Secretary of State in Florida before the 2000 election,

how many Democrats there appreciated what an important position that would turn out to be? Or Kenneth Blackwell in Ohio in 2004? Important things can have small beginnings. Imagine if either of those people had been Democrats?

[The Doctor.]

28. We'd still have the WTC.

I find it impossible to believe that President Gore could have achieved that level of negligence if he tried.

[Beam Me Up]

10. Yeah, and FWIW, McCain won't win this one, either. n/t

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[FourScore]

24. it will take a couple of decades, but someday this will be common knowledge. n/t

[MessiahRp]

37. Lest we forget James Carvilles role in this also

If we want to talk about rats, there was few bigger than he in '04.

Traitor.

Rp

[Awsi Dooger]

51. Another headache

I note he received the granite, apropos at lucky 13 number of posts :rofl:

Gee, I wonder who that was?

I love how he asserted several times that Ohio's economy was hurting in '04. It certainly was. That allowed the state to bend in our direction, from it's typical spot of 2-4 points more Republican than the nation in the partisan index (state relationship to national margin):

Ohio:
'88: Bush (55.00 - 44.15) = + 3.13% Republican
'92: Clinton (40.18 - 38.35) = + 3.73% Republican
'96: Clinton (47.38 - 41.02) = + 2.17% Republican
'00: Bush (49.97 - 46.46) = + 4.02% Republican

With the horrid economy, '04 looked like this:

'04: Bush (50.81 - 48.71) = 0.36% Democratic

A starting point is relevant. It's comical how the fraud crew thrills to pretend otherwise. "Ohio has a lousy economy, therefore it's guaranteed to vote for the challenger." It did, more than 4 points deviant from the partisanship of its previous cycle, and at least 2.5 points more blue than anything it had demonstrated in 16+ years.

I predicted repeatedly on this site in '04 that Ohio would mirror the national vote. The problem was national result, favoring Bush in pre-election polls and the official vote. I know, the vote that was rigged, similar to Ohio. You can't provide results here. The results are anything we want them to be.

Anyway, it's amusing that the same fraud crew spent plenty of time picking apart the Florida results post '04, fixated on registration percentages in northern Florida counties, etc. In contrast to Ohio, Florida's economy was booming in 2004 and the preceding years. It's the principal reason Bush managed a far superior result in Florida 2004 than 2000.

Obviously we don't care when the state economic factor tilts the other way. Spoils the little argument:

http://www.bonitasprings-naplesrealestate.com/bin/web/real_estate/AR81199/EXTRA_FORM1/1212618595.html

"In 2002, U.S. GDP growth rebounded to a rate of 1.9% while
Florida’s GSP grew at a rate of 3.3%. 2003 was a particularly strong year for the
Florida economy, as GSP grew 5.7% over the previous year 2.7% greater than U.S.
GDP growth of 3.0%. In 2004, the U.S. economy grew at a healthy pace of 4.4%. As
of June 8, 2005, 2004 GSP data for Florida was not available, but estimates suggest
that the Florida economy outgrew the U.S. economy by close to 1.0%"

[OnTheOtherHand]

52. good points on economic context

There are lots of differences between Ohio and Florida, but that had to have been a big one.

If by "the fraud crew" you mean the folks who are convinced that Kerry won, I don't think many make both these arguments (that Kerry must've won Ohio because of the economy, and that the numbers in FL are skanky). The arguments aren't strictly contradictory, but as you say, they don't dovetail neatly. Some people specialize in developing one line of argument apparently without considering others; some are just happy that there seem to be lots of arguments pointing to the same conclusion, although they may not actually cohere.

Febble pointed me to a fallacy whose name is very rude in U.S. English, but refers to a bunch of sticks. It's the idea that lots of weak arguments become a strong argument when indiscriminately piled together.