Who Else Thinks the 2004 Election Wasn't Stolen?

[JackD76]

Normally I would post some long explanation here but I don't feel like it. I just want to know if any feels that the 2004 election was not stolen, like I do.




Now, I just wait for the flood of posts telling me why it was stolen.

[Trajan]

1. Step one: .. hang bare ass out window ....

Step two: Beg passersby to spank you ....

[The Doctor.]

31. 'Some people' won't actually read the 'flood of posts'

They will not read the explaination of why so many people believe in the fraud.

They haven't the intelectual curiousity or patience to do so.

Which is to say hey would be unlikely to feel the spankings.

[saltpoint]

2. We could ask President Gore and President Kerry --

-- what they think.

Bush cheated.

[zann725]

74. Right on!

n/t

[sportndandy]

3. Great analysis. Thanks for the insight. Check this link.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=354935&mesg_id=354935

[amjucsc]

49. Unfortunately, there's no evidence of fraud...

Or at least nothing sufficiently large to invalidate the results (especially the popular results) of the election.

And yes I have seen the analysis of the voting patterns that someone put up to prove Kerry won. Unfortunately it dosen't take into account the simple possibility that a large number of people who voted for Gore in 2000 voted for Bush in 2004. While this is incomprehensible to most people on DU, a lot of Americans (especially older, socially conservative people in traditionally Democratic areas) bought W's 'rally round the President' BS hook, line and sinker

If one actually compares the state by state results of the 2000 and 2004 elections (which you can do at David Liep's wonderful election atlas <http://www.uselectionatlas.org/>). You'll find that Bush's gains came in states that were either strongly red (ie his margin of victory in WV grew from 6.3% in '00 to 12.8% in '04, in GA it grew from 11.7 to 16.6, in OK from 22 to 31%, etc) or strongly blue (the Dem MOV in CA fell to 9.95% from 11.8 in '00, in NY from nearly 25 to 18.3, in IL from 12 to 10.3, etc). These are areas where you are unlikely to find electoral fraud: election officials in highly conservative areas would be foolish to attempt to rig the vote for W (as it would be unnecessary, and invite a massive scandal if it were to be discovered) and the electoral officials in blue states would be more likely to try and rig a Kerry victory.

Kerry actually won the swing states, garnering both the popular vote and a majority of the electoral votes in the ten closest states (this excludes FL) virtually all of which had electoral results that did not deviate significantly from the results of 2000 (Kerry did better in Ohio than Gore did, etc). The sole exception to this is FL which went from being dead even to a solid 5% win for W in '04. Fraud investigators would do well to concentrate their efforts here-- however other factors (such as the hurricanes) could go a long way towards explaining the change.

While it goes without saying that I wish Kerry had won, I feel that liberals are doing themselves a great disservice by pretending that their victory was stolen away. While Kerry would have been a great President, he was (IMHO) a relatively poor candidate and failed to present the American people with a sufficiently clear explanation for why W should be sent back to Crawford. This is hard for die hard liberals to understand but there are millions of people (many of them Dems) who tune into FOX instead of NPR for their news, and have a very dim understanding of things like the federal budget, health care, or international relations. Many of these people went with the amiable and foolish (but consistent) President they knew, over the distant and often indecipherable Kerry, whose nuanced policy positions seemed dangeriosly close to being the blather of a politician who dosen't believe in anything and just says whatever will win him votes.

That, in a nutshell, is why we lost. The country is still pretty evenly divided, and I suspect the Republicans are in the process of committing slow electoral suicide by drifting out of the political mainstream--however this hasn't happened yet, and Dems could push the date of their eventual return to power back considerably by pretending that there is a silent majority of die hard liberals out there whose vote is being nullified by some evil unseen force, be it apathy, electoral fraud or (I don't know) space aliens. We need to concentrate on tailoring our message and our beliefs to win back the middle, instead of grousing about another stolen election.

[ariellyn]

50. Untrue nt

[amjucsc]

52. Care to support your position?

I'll happily debate the point

[merh]

57. Just curious, since you are willing to debate the point made in

that post, have you been able to determine how the software used affected the outcome of the election? Was there electronic vote swapping?

How about those tabulators - how did they work?

[amjucsc]

70. More on the election...

Frankly I can only attempt to analyze the final numbers from the election. Again, except for FL, none of the swing states produced numbers that are strikingly dis-similar from the results of the 2000 election-- and I would be very surprised if election officials in, say, Georgia would have tried to meddle with final results that would almost certainly favor W to begin with.

The amount of fraud associated with electronic machines (or other methods) is essentially unknowable. It's probably a safe assumption that there was some fraud carried out, by both sides, during the election on the local level. I'm also not going to argue that it is impossible for electoral officials in a very close swing state--Nevada or Ohio, for example--to have turned a narrow Kerry win into a narrow Bush win (or vice versa). And I would like to see an explanation for the final result in FL. So I concede that it is feasible that Bush stole the electoral college. However unless (as some columnist put it) you find a box of 100,000 uncounted Kerry ballots floating down the Kiahoga (sp) river, liberal charges that W stole the election are nothing more that idle speculation. He might've but we have no real proof, certainly nowhere near enough to justify hundreds of "W stole the election" posts.

In regards to the national popular vote, Bush won. Certainly some Republican fraud is likely on the local level, but it would be largely cancelled out by Democratic fraud. A conspiracy large enough to turn a 7m vote Kerry win (as someone suggested) into a 3m vote Bush win, would have required the involvement of dozens of state level electoral officials from across the country--which is hugely unlikely considering the risks involved, and the negligible benefits to be gained.

[merh]

77. You know what, you just reasoned that it is feasible that Kerry won,

given that you concede that "vote swapping" in those parts of Ohio and Nevada that used the "questionable" electronic devices was not only probable, but likely. "So I concede that it is feasible that Bush stole the electoral college."

As GWB proved in 2000, you don't have to win the popular vote to win the election. Kerry won the electoral college vote, that means he won the election and their manipulation of the election devices stole votes that were Kerry's and put them in Bush's win column.

They won't let us have the machines inspected by independent experts. If the election and the machines were on the up and up, why not allow the inspections?

[amjucsc]

89. It is feasible...

...however it isn't proven, as a lot of people seem to assume that it is.

It is possible that Bush (or people working on his behalf) rigged the election in a given state. However saying that something is possible is far different from stating conclusively that it occured.

For example I hold that it is possible for life to exist on other planets. However it would be absurd for me to use that belief to conclusively declare that life exists on Mars.

I conceded that fraud was likely on the local level--in the form of some precinct worker tossing out ballots or hacking computer systems (though I'm not speaking solely of areas that used electronic machines)-- however I hold that it probably occured on both sides, has probably occured in every significant election ever held in the United States (and the world for the matter) and in and of itself is insufficient to call the final result of the election into question.

[merh]

78. Oh, by the way,

isn't there something in the Ohio state law that provides misconduct during the recounts or improper handling of the ballots is "prima facie" proof of election fraud? If Kerry won Ohio, he won the electoral college and that means he won the election.

[clem_c_rock]

61. And this is all based on mainstream media's analysis

It's funny how, this is the first election where exit poll data suddenly became irrelevent. I am a computer programmer and I can tell you this: it takes about 1 years computer programming knowlege to understand the diebold machines are SPECIFICALLY BUILT FOR FRAUD.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0307/S00065.htm#password. When you hear of these so-called bugs that "accidently" gave Bush extra votes, these are not bugs. A voting machine, programically speaking, is not at all, a complex computer programming. The browser you're using to view the internet is about 10,000 times more complex. The fact that we've been using ATM's w/ no "glitches" for the last 20 years also proves these voting machines are a joke.

Also-since you have such undying faith in our system and the GOP playing fairly - why don't you try to dubunk some of these points.
http://nightweed.com/usavotefacts.html.

If you believe in mainstream media as a source of truthfull information on such topics, the same mainstream media that is owned by 6 massive corporations, all of which, have donated to the Bush campaign, you're really flying on articles of extreme faith.

[amjucsc]

71. Again this is not based on any media analysis...

But a direct comparison of election returns (the final number of people who voted for W, Gore and Kerry) in 2000 and 2004.

In response to the list on nightweed.com none of those posts constitutes actual evidence of fraud. They suggest that fraud was possible, and the last few suggest that it might very well have occured, but none of them constitute anything like a smoking gun.

To be clear, I am by no means suggesting that fraud was impossible. I fully expect that some of it did occur (probably perpetrated by both sides). However the articles floating around suggesting that Kerry won by 7m votes are patently unrealistic.

[The Magistrate]

63. An Excellent Analysis, Mr. Amjucsc

[fujiyama]

82. I agree overall

on the main point you are trying to make - that while fraud was possible it is somewhat unlikely Kerry won the national popular vote.

However, I think there were many discrepencies in OH (long lines, voter intimidation, distribution of voter machines, etc)...and NV, NM, and possibly FL (though I'd probably concede the hurricanes did have an impact) regarding electronic voting.

The one problem I have is that you talk about fraud from both sides. While I concede that Dems are capable of fraud, I have seen only one incident of Dems trying to stifle repuke votes (the WI bus tire slashing thing), but meanwhile there were several problems with electronic voting and - and always in favor of Bush and the republicans. This is not to mention repuke voter intimidation in several states.

So, the idea that the fraud "cancels itself out" really is a meaningless statement. Just as you accuse others of pushing fraud without evidence, I'd like to see evidence of Dem voter fraud.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

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

[amjucsc]

90. You are correct, I can't know the level of fraud...

However it would be naive to assume that Dems didn't perpetrate a fair amount of it. Let's be honest, if you had had access to a few thousand votes in OH or NV, you'd be highly tempted to up Kerry's total a bit. I certainly would have, and I'd be very surprised if no Dem had given into that sort of temptation. Comparing Republicans and Democrats, both sides had roughly equal stakes in the outcome of the election, so I'd imagine you'd get roughly equal levels of fraud. That's just a guess, of course, but I feel that it's a resonable one.

[stray cat]

4. I really don't know.

I don't trust Jeb Bush in Florida and Ohio definitely had some problems. I think the political machinery of Bush Co and 9-11 propaganda made the difference.

[The Doctor.]

5. What on earth makes you think the election was stolen?

Please provide examples... I'm curious.

:\

[natrat]

15. that's funny

what on earth makes you think it wasnt

[The Doctor.]

20. He he he....

I've studied this issue to death.

I have no doubt whatsoever that this was a heavily rigged election.

I just wanted to hear what the OP had to say.

[rogerashton]

6. Even if the count was fair, Shrubby, as a rebel,

(having stolen the 2000 election) could not constitutionally even be a candidate. Check the 15th amendment.

[Ms_Mary]

7. And your opinion on the voting issues with Diebold is?

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[Pithy Cherub]

9. Do you enjoy being

:spank:

The democratic linchpin of voting is defiled by the electronic tools in use today under the guardianship of a republican monopoly.

[TheFarseer]

10. I'm really not sure

I really do think that if the recount in Florida would have went forward, Al Gore would be in his second term. As for rigged voting machines in this election - I don't know, it seems a little out there. I suppose it's possible. It's not like this election was a slam dunk and we lost. Alot of blame is on us too.

[natrat]

17. a little out there?

these fuckers lie and kill on an institutional level. What's going to stop them from hacking machines that were designed to be hacked. A little out there. please

[On the Road]

11. I Haven't Seen Enough Evidence

to indicate that 2004 was stolen. The exit poll discrepancy is not proof. It hasn't been shown that more specific examples are large enough to add 130,000 Kerry votes or flip 65,000. (The 2000 election, on the other hand, definitely should have gone to Gore -- the consortium recount showed that pretty clearly.)

I would love to see election theft be substantiated. There was definitely some monkey business during the lockdown north of Cincinnati. The distribution of voting machines cost Kerry thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of votes, but in most locations Democrats were part of the decisionmaking process. There are individual reports of machines flipping Kerry votes to Bush, but the statistics for electronic machines are not that different from other voting methods. The reports of stickers placed over Kerry votes are intriguing but have to be substantiated -- I'm frankly not sure if the reports were accurate.

This may anger some people here who think the election was stolen beyond the shadow of a doubt. I suspect that the Republican pulled some dirty tricks in an election that they would otherwise have narrowly won.

[marions ghost]

27. In addition to all the "probable cause" arguments

for a skewed election that have been detailed at DU, there is this overview to consider--that we do not yet have a system that is effective in investigating or prosecuting election crimes. Meanwhile the "spotty" tampering of the past has metastasized into a systemic disease. There is incredible resistance in this country to realizing the extent of the problem and accepting the ease of election manipulation = it's called denial. Now with the advent of auditless DREs, sold by Republicans with felonious checkered backgrounds who have a vested interest in keeping Republicans in office...well, all it takes is kickin it up a notch.

Have you read the following article, ribofunk? What's your answer?
---------------------------------------------------------

The Miami Herald Feb 03, 2005
ELECTIONS
Ukraine vote yields important lessons for U.S. democracy
BY LANCE DEHAVEN-SMITH

(excerpt)
"...unlike this year's presidential election in Ukraine, the 2004 presidential election in the United States was left intact despite legal challenges and protests. In large part this was because U.S. election laws and political culture fail to take into account the potential for systematic bias in election administration. U.S. laws and public opinion focus, instead, on the possibility that unscrupulous candidates might arrange for votes to be cast illegally by individuals using false identifications, forged absentee ballots, or other ruses.

Election shenanigans were common in the 19th Century and in much of the 20th, but in recent years they have been eclipsed by scattered mischief that is carried out or abetted by public officials responsible for election administration. One factor that has contributed to this shift from the conspiratorial tampering of the past to the massive fraud that is so prevalent today is the poorly conceived effort to remake government in the image of the private sector. In recent years, civil-service protections for government employees have been greatly weakened, and many governmental functions have been contracted out to private corporations.

These changes in American public administration have created a new spoils system that makes massive fraud likely in today's elections because it effectively ties public employment and government contracts to election outcomes. In Florida and Ohio, for example, many corporations, public officials and government workers had a vested interest in the reelection of President Bush. No conspiracy was needed to orchestrate their activities. Multiple biases with cumulative effects could be (and were) introduced into the election system through the independent efforts of numerous individuals acting on their own initiative in the pursuit of the same objective. Until U.S. election laws are reformed to guard against massive fraud, our elections will remain vulnerable to systemic abuses.

To be sure, bias in election administration could probably be prosecuted today under existing laws. Certainly, officials in Florida and Ohio appear to have violated their official oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution and the constitutions of their states. They may have also broken federal civil-rights laws by intentionally weakening the voting power of African Americans. However, these acts of massive fraud have gone unpunished -- and, indeed, uninvestigated -- because most Americans have yet to recognize the new form of election tampering that is undermining our democracy."

Lance deHaven-Smith is professor of public administration and policy at Florida State University.

[On the Road]

34. I Completely Agree

that the process for investigating election fraud is utterly inadequate.

Voting records are supposed to be public information, but everyone who's followed the issue the last two elections knows the difficulties in even getting access to that public information.

Some of what happened in Ohio this time was probably fraud. The examples of outright fraud being charged are probably too small to have swung the state (unlike Florida 2000, in which Gore clearly got enough votes).

It should be provable one way or the other, but so far Ken Blackwell and the rest of the Republican machinery has been able to stonewall and prevent the kind of investigation needed to prove it. I think voter suppression by inadequate distribution of machines may have swung Ohio. Because of the decisionmaking process, it's not clear to me how much of that was caused by Republicans. Cleveland, which had some of the worst problems, has a Democratic county government.

Perhaps more of the effort in lobbying for election reform should be concentrated on the back end -- on making it easy and straightforward to investigate suspicious patterns right down to ballot examination. And processes for overturning the results if sufficient fraud is found.

[The Doctor.]

29. Hahahahahaha.....

No, the exit 'poll discrepancy' is not 'proof'.

The fact that the exit poll discrepancies only occurred about the precincts where the Diebold and Opti-scans were used is not 'proof'.

The fact that these discrepancies favored only one candidate in every area that mattered is not 'proof'.

The fact that OH Sec. of State Kenneth Blackwell personally directed the recounts to precincts where there were not significant discrepancies is not 'proof'.

The fact that SoS Blackwell personally ordered the lockdown of poll records and denied access to those records by auditors, which is in direct violation of Ohio Revised Code Title XXXV Elections, Sec. 3503.26, ORC Sec. 3599.161, and ORC Sec. 3599.42 which directly constitutes fraud... is not 'proof'.

The fact that SoS Blackwell was also the cochairman of Bush's re-election campaign in Ohio is not 'proof'.

The fact that nearly ALL the electronic voting machines that were used in the election were made by companies with allegiance to the Republicans is not 'proof'.

That Diebold CEO Walden O'dell said that he was dedicated to 'delivering Ohio's electoral votes to Bush' is not 'proof'.

The fact that a Triad representative showed up at Hocking County BOE and replaced parts in the central tabulator just prior to the recounts and instructed the BOE staff to surreptitiously post numbers about the room so that the 'counts would match'... is not proof.

That machines were deliberately withheld from heavily democratic precincts by Republican election officials resulting in waits of up to 9 hours in some areas... is not 'proof'.

And BELIEVE ME - I could go on.

But I guess you're right - since there's no proof... just a mountain of circumstantial evidence that could convict Mother Theresa of blackmail and extortion...

Then it must have been a perfectly legitimate election.

[On the Road]

37. I Appreciate It If You Would Point Me to Sources for This:

The fact that the exit poll discrepancies only occurred about the precincts where the Diebold and Opti-scans were used...

It's been several months, but the sources that I looked in Nov-Dec showed something very different, namely that Diebold precincts were not at all out of line with others.

That machines were deliberately withheld from heavily democratic precincts by Republican election officials...."

This may have true around Columbus, although even there I do not believe it was just a GOP decision. I don't see how it was true in Cleveland, in which the key decisions should have been made by Democrats.

I think Republicans tried everything they thought they could get away with to favor Bush in this election. Nothing that I've seen indicates that Republican fraud and other forms of suppression would have erased the 130,000 vote discrepancy. And you don't seem to be able to show it either.

Do people seem to be tuning you out? Maybe it's because you're resorting to mocking. Personally, I think that greatly damages the effort.

[The Doctor.]

42. Poring over my lists now...

I just stopped back in and don't have an awful lot of time, but I will find anything for you that I can.

Off the top of my head - it was, I think, Franklin County BOE director Matt Damschroder who was responsible for the placement discrepancies.
I've seen the arguments that 'The BOE chairpeople were Democrats', which is true.
But it is the directors who have executive responsibility.

Either way - I believe everyone should be held accountable.

The machine type - exit poll correlations were harder to compile as I had not actually found a single database with a comprehensive comparison. That would take me some time to put together, but I'd be happy to do so - if for no other reason than to have a more comprehensive list.

My personal study has found that in every critical precinct where exit polls exceeded the MOE, there were electronic machines... mostly touchscreen and optiscan.

I'll try to post these tonight, or, if you would like, I'll PM you sometime with more details.

As for my 'tone'... I do apologize that you felt mocked. Such was not my intention. I'll admit that I've had a low level of tolerance for the willfully uninformed lately, I'm sorry if I had inadvertently lumped you into that category.

When I see the phrase, "I've seen nothing that would convince me/prove that...", I read it as "I haven't looked for anything that would convince me/prove that...".

While I generally try to yeild the 'benefit of the doubt', I have lately been dealing with individuals who refuse to live in reality.
My most frustrating issue is that of global warming and the vast numbers who think it's a hoax because Rush Limbaugh and a bunch of 'scientists' paid by petroleum companies told them so.

It is because of this and many other encounters with abject ignorance that I have developed some of these reflexes, but it is my personal belief that if my tone makes you deaf - it is your problem, not mine.

I do generally exhibit more patience with each new individual I attempt to inform on other sites.
I will certainly pay more attention not to engage in such self-indulgence.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[On the Road]

88. Thank You, Dr. Eldritch,

you have no idea how much I appreciate your response.

I would like to see more information on how Republicans could have shortchanged Democratic polling places of voting machines. I understand Franklin County to some extent, but it would seem unlikely in Cuyahoga County. But there may be things about the decisionmaking process that are not obvious.

I spent many hours in Nov and Dec looking at material on election irregularities and gave money to several recount organizations. I personally examined some of the local election results and posted some charts here on DU. I still think it's inconclusive, and eventually just tired of reading repeated claims that there were 600-million-to-1-odds that the national exit polls were off, when this is not even remotely true.

Rather than being willfully ignorant, I actually try to read a variety of sources skeptically but with an open mind. For example, I think the Wikipedia entry is excellent. On the specific issue of exit polls discrepancies in Diebold or other electronic precincts, I've seen conflicting claims. I will try to find one that showed voting method had no significant difference. It's important because Republicans did not have equal opportunity for fraud in all polling places. I know there are other studies-- I may have seen the one you were referring to also.

Not every claim can be taken at face value. For example, Bev Harris apparently fabricated the story about the black plastic trash bag being ripped open and duplicate voting records falling out. The story of stickers being placed over Kerry votes on Opti-Scan ballots has some of the same feel to me -- I don't completely trust it without further validation.

Some of the irregularities may be isolated or accidental. Data problems are common, and I'm sure hundreds of them happened on election day. If they were severe enough to overturn the election, though, I would expect them to show up as exit poll discrepancies -- that's why that issue is so important.

To me, it's not only a question of intent, opportunity, and motive. It's also a question of numbers. I don't strong enough anomalies there to close a 130,000-vote gap in Ohio. The GOP might have tried to steal an election they would have won anyway.

[Just Me]

48. The "sources" have been posted in this forum.

Ad nauseum!!! Why you would request that someone else instantly produce those "sources" on a platter, on demand,...freakin' floors me.

Moreover, even IF someone produced, on demand, your request for "sources", would that be enough PROOF,...for you,...that the GOP CHEATED, CHEATED, CHEATED AND STOLE AND WILL STEAL ELECTIONS?

Damn. Acknowledging denial is the first step towards solving any problem.

[Birthmark]

12. In the absence of meaningful evidence to the contrary...

...I agree with you. I've been unimpressed with the statistical claims presented so far as "evidence" that the election was stolen. That would be easy. But that's just not what it looks like. Looks like Kerry lost.

[laura888]

13. Here are a few reasons to doubt the election results...

1) Heavily democratic precincts in Ohio did not have enough voting machines - even though voting officials knew weeks in advance of the record numbers of people registering. People walked away from polls without voting, having waited 5+ hours. At the same time, heavily repub precincts had all the machines they needed.
2) The manufacturers of the voting machines were known pro-Bush republicans.
3) Exit polls showed a clear Kerry advantage from the get-go. Exit polls, historically, have never been wrong.
4) Republicans in Congress have rejected all overtures by dems to create a paper trail for voting machines.

On a personal note - I know of at least 2 people who voted for the first time in this election (and they are over age 30) because they wanted Bush gone. I also know 3 people who switched the dem ticket because they wanted Bush gone.

I know of not one single instance where someone either voted for the first time because they wanted to vote for Bush, or switched to Bush.

[enid602]

21. election

Everything you mention above makes me SUSPECT the 2004 election results. The fact that the media won't touch the subject with a ten foot pole makes me CERTAIN of election fraud.

[Paradise]

14. hahahahahahahahahahahaha...

now, that's really funny! :spray:


what is it, again, they ask about bears in the woods?

hi! :hi:

[mattclearing]

16. This post happens about once a week here.

Nice waste of time.

Count me in the stolen crowd. After discussing the GEMS software with an expert, I'm convinced that something shady is happening.

The vote totals have been known to be transmitted to Diebold corporate headquarters during tabulation.

There's no good reason why that would be done.

[natrat]

19. no doubt- we are screwed

i can deal with that i guess -i just hate the scumbags who try to cover it up

[humanriteswritlarge]

26. Of course the election was stolen.

These statistics just reinforced what I thought had happened to the election in 2004. And when a statistician said the probablility of the exit polls being wrong and Bush winning was tantamount to winning the lottery twice in two weeks. The following is not my work, just something that I copied and held on to/



THE MOST LIKELY SCENARIO: KERRY WON BY 7 MILLION VOTES

Edited on Sat Mar-26-05 05:16 AM by TruthIsAll




Here are FIVE REALISTIC scenarios based on LIVE voter turnout.

A significant finding is this:
Regardless of whether 100%, 99%, 98% or 97% of 2000 voters
returned to the polls, the Kerry winning margin hardly
changes (it increases by 18,000 votes for each 1% decline).
So the percentage turnout factor is of minimal effect.
However, the voter turnout MIX is THE MAJOR FACTOR IN THE
WIDE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE TOTALLY UNREALISTIC AND
MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FINAL EXIT POLL (13660) AND THE
REALISTIC AND VERY PLAUSIBLE PRELIMINARY EXIT POLL (13047).

Using the 13660 final exit poll, after adjusting from a
mathematically impossible mix (43 Bush/37% Gore) to a very
plausible one (39.82/40.25%), then Kerry wins by 3.21 million
votes (51%-48.4%), EXACTLY REVERSING the NEP conclusion that
Bush won by 3.22 million.

Using the 13047 preliminary exit poll weights, Kerry wins by
7 million votes (52%-46.5%).

The Five Scenario Summary:
Turnout Kerry Margin (millions)
1 100% 3.21 (NEP final)
2 100% 6.65 (NEP preliminary)
3 99% 6.84 ""
4 98% 7.02 ""
5 97% 7.20 ""

THE FINAL NATIONAL EXIT POLL OF 13660 is matched to the final
recorded vote. Bush won the poll by 3.22 million votes
(51.1-48.5%).
The poll asserts that 43% of Bush 2000 voters (an IMPOSSIBLE
104.14% turnout) came to the polls in 2004, while just 37% of
Gore voters did. The proof: Bush received 50.456 million votes
in 2000, or 41.26% of the total 122.26 million who voted in
2004.

According to death rate statistics, approximately 3.5% of
2000 voters have died. Subtracting 3.5% from the 2000
individual votes for Gore and Bush, and dividing the net
result by 122.26 mm, then the MAXIMUM POSSIBLE LIVE 2000
voter turnout was 39.82% (Bush) and 40.25% (Gore).

FINAL EXIT POLL (13660):IMPOSSIBLE WEIGHTINGS
Voted 2000 Mix Bush Kerry Nader
20.774 No 17% 45% 54% 1%
45.214 Gore 37% 10% 90% 1%
52.546 Bush 43% 91% 9% 0%
3.666 Other 3% 21% 71% 3%
101.426 TOTAL 100% 51.11% 48.48% 0.63%
Votes 122.53 62.49 59.27 0.77
Bush Margin 3.22


REALISTIC SCENARIOS:

Scenario 1
FINAL 13660 POLL WEIGHTS- ADJUSTED FOR 3.5% DEATH RATE
100% turnout of 2000 voters: 101.097 million

Voted 2000 Mix Bush Kerry Nader
21.163 None 17.31% 45% 54% 1%
49.210 Gore 40.25% 10% 90% 0%
48.684 Bush 39.82% 91% 9% 0%
3.203 Other 2.62% 13% 71% 16%
TOTAL 100.00% 48.39% 51.02% 0.59%
122.26 Votes 59.16 62.37 0.72
Kerry Margin 3.21


Scenario 2
PRELIMINARY 13047 POLL- WEIGHTS ADJUSTED FOR 3.5% DEATH
RATE
100% turnout of 2000 voters: 101.097 million

Voted 2000 Mix Bush Kerry Nader
21.163 None 17.31% 41.5% 57.5% 1%
49.210 Gore 40.25% 8% 91% 1%
48.684 Bush 39.82% 90% 9% 1%
3.203 Other 2.62% 13% 71% 16%
TOTAL 100.00% 46.58% 52.02% 1.39%
122.26 Votes 122.26 56.95 63.61 1.70
Kerry Margin 6.65

Scenario 3 (Most Likely)
99% turnout of 2000 voters: 99.874 million

Voted 2000 Mix Bush Kerry Nader
22.386 None 18.31% 41.5% 57.5% 1%
48.598 Gore 39.75% 8% 91% 1%
48.073 Bush 39.32% 90% 9% 1%
3.203 Other 2.62% 13% 71% 16%
TOTAL 100.00% 46.51% 52.10% 1.39%
122.26 Votes 122.26 56.86 63.70 1.70
Kerry Margin 6.84

Scenario 4
98% turnout of 2000 voters: 98.652 million

Voted 2000 Mix Bush Kerry Nader
23.608 None 19.31% 41.5% 57.5% 1%
47.987 Gore 39.25% 8% 91% 1%
47.461 Bush 38.82% 90% 9% 1%
3.203 Other 2.62% 13% 71% 16%
TOTAL 100.00% 46.43% 52.17% 1.39%
122.26 Votes 122.26 56.77 63.79 1.70
Kerry Margin 7.02

Scenario 5
97% turnout of 2000 voters: 97.429 million

Voted 2000 Mix Bush Kerry Nader
24.831 None 20.31% 41.5% 57.5% 1%
47.376 Gore 38.75% 8% 91% 1%
46.850 Bush 38.32% 90% 9% 1%
3.203 Other 2.62% 13% 71% 16%
TOTAL 100.00% 46.36% 52.25% 1.39%
122.26 Votes 122.26 56.68 63.88 1.70
Kerry Margin 7.20







Part II




HOW TO RED-SHIFT THE NATIONAL EXIT POLL IN 6 EASY STEPS...

Edited on Thu Mar-24-05 10:44 PM by TruthIsAll
Start here:
Preliminary Exit Poll
13047 Respondents
12:22am Nov.3
Kerry is the winner by 4.2 million votes:
50.82% - 47.38%

What does it take to turn that around for Bush?
Well, first you need 613 additional respondents.
And then you need to go to a massage parlor.


VOTED 2000
Mix Bush Kerry Nader
No 17% 41% 57% 1%
Gore 39% 8% 91% 1%
Bush 41% 90% 9% 0%
Other 3% 13% 65% 16%
100% 47.38% 50.82% 1.04%
Votes 57.93 62.13
Bush is trailing by 4.21 million votes.

Now this is the weighting you all have been waiting
for:

1. Increase Bush share of new voters to 45%, reduce Kerry to
54%
VOTED 2000
Mix Bush Kerry Nader
No 17% 45% 54% 1%
Gore 39% 8% 91% 1%
Bush 41% 90% 9% 0%
Other 3% 13% 65% 16%
100% 48.06% 50.31% 1.04%
Votes 58.76 61.51
Bush made up ground, but is still behind by 2.75 million
votes

2. Increase Bush Other to 21%, reduce Nader to 3%
VOTED 2000
Mix Bush Kerry Nader
No 17% 45% 54% 1%
Gore 39% 8% 91% 1%
Bush 41% 90% 9% 0%
Other 3% 21% 65% 3%
100% 48.30% 50.31% 0.65%
Votes 59.05 61.51
Not much help. Bush is trailing by 2.46 million.

3. Reduce Gore 2000 voters for Kerry to 90%, increase Bush
2000 voters for Bush to 91%.

VOTED 2000
Mix Bush Kerry Nader
No 17% 45% 54% 1%
Gore 39% 8% 90% 1%
Bush 41% 91% 9% 0%
Other 3% 21% 71% 3%
100% 48.71% 50.10% 0.65%
Votes 59.55 61.25
Good move. Bush is closing, and trailing by 1.70 million.

4. Increase Gore voters for Bush from 8 to 10%.

VOTED 2000
Mix Bush Kerry Nader
No 17% 45% 54% 1%
Gore 39% 10% 90% 1%
Bush 41% 91% 9% 0%
Other 3% 21% 71% 3%
100% 49.49% 50.10% 0.65%
Votes 60.51 61.25
Big move. Bush is trailing by just 0.75 million.
A Drastic move is necessary.
Must change the Gore/Bush mix.

5.Increase the Bush mix to 42%, even though 41.26% is the
absolute maximum that could vote, assuming NO Bush 2000
voters died and ALL returned to vote.
The hell with the Reluctant Bush Responder theory.

VOTED 2000
Mix Bush Kerry Nader
No 17% 45% 54% 1%
Gore 38% 10% 90% 1%
Bush 42% 91% 9% 0%
Other 3% 21% 71% 3%
100% 50.30% 49.29% 0.64%
Votes 61.50 60.26
Bush has finally taken the lead.
But 1.23 million is not enough.
Since 42% is already an impossibility, let's go for all the
marbles and make it 43%.
What the hell.
Edison/Mitofsky need to match Bush's 3.5 million margin.

6. Increase the Bush/Gore spread to 43-37%.
That should do it.

VOTED 2000
Mix Bush Kerry Nader
No 17% 45% 54% 1%
Gore 37% 10% 90% 1%
Bush 43% 91% 9% 0%
Other 3% 21% 71% 3%
100% 51.11% 48.48% 0.63%
Votes 62.49 59.27

Bush wins the Final Exit poll of 13660 respondents by 3.22
million votes.

The Final Exit Poll finally matches to the recorded vote.

That about nails it. This reminds me of Plato's notion of Anemnisis.
He claimed that if you had a fragment of a picture, situation, phenomena, you could logically infer the remainder of the pattern (the whole picture) through logical analysis. I've never really understood this concept (and I'm sure others after Plato have outlined it). But now I do. The available data, hard to get and difficult to understand, is the basis for this analysis. This work is compelling. I think you should get the Nobel Prize for this!!! Maybe you will if we get a Democratic Congress in 2006 or a Democratic President in 2008, one with a real sense of intellectual honesty and more importantly curiosity. I recall one of your pre-election posts when you said that Kerry had to really nail it in order for the 'believable' vote fixing schemes to be ineffective. Were you ever right. You told us so! Thank you for this work

[The Doctor.]

30. The problem is,

Most 'conservatives' haven't the patience or intellect to actually read through that kind of information and process it.

It's much easier for these simpletons to say you're nuts than it is to ACTUALLY LOOK at the information.

We are up against the forces of abject ignorance. No truth can persuade the ignorant.

[dsc]

18. There are two seperate issues here

One is was Ohio stolen and thus the Presidency. I do think Ohio did a very poor job of running the election and that may have cost Kerry a very narrow victory in Ohio. It also might not have.

Two is the popular vote as a whole. Bush clearly won that by well over a million votes and probably more like two million.

So maybe Kerry should be President, but we shouldn't use his stategy to try to win back Congress since he did get fewer votes.

[Bluebear]

22. I liked your post yesterday better, "Let's let them kill the filibuster"

[gollygee]

23. I give it a 50% chance of having been stolen

maybe it was, maybe he would have won anyway. Thanks to "irregularities" we'll never know. We should be able to have more faith in our election process than that.

[K-W]

24. I have no clue what actually happened, so I dont draw conclusions. EOM

[SophieZ]

25. ya da ya da ya da. Your timing is great -- many DU election activists

are in Tennessee this weekend.

But hey, ask away.

If you ever see a stranger get into your car, put the keys into the ignition, and drive away, wonder if it will occur to you to investigate?

[Thtwudbeme]

28. Moot point. 2000 was and that invalidates any "re" election of a thief.

2000 was stolen, period, and getting over it is one of the dumbest things Dems have ever done IMHO.

2004? It just doesn't matter.

[JackD76]

32. As I suspected

I have been accused of being a potential freeper via my inbox but i don't care. I was outright banned from one democratic forum for suggesting that bush didn't steal the 2004 election. The reason why I feel that he didn't steal the election is because there is just no credible evidence of any such action. Sure, you can show me a thousand of opinion articles from people that i have never heard of but until any solid evidence comes along, I am not convinced. Sure, I believe there was ramped voter suppression in Ohio but I don't think that Kerry could have won Ohio, even if they didn't do it. One thing that people always point out is the exit polls. Yes, Kerry did win the exit polls in Ohio by what, 1 maybe 2 points? Those things do have a margin of error. Plus, if the exit polls were right, then how come Kerry was winning Pennsylvania by 20 points for much of the day? I have studied this I have I reached my own conclusion on this subject. I looked at polls running up to election day, from states and on the national level, most of which kerry was behind in. I looked at the exit polling and I looked at the "evidence" of voter fraud, from school children hacking the machines, to the CEO of Die-bold going to recount stations and messing with the machines, even some vast conspiracy involving Nazis and secret societies. Have any of you actually thought that Kerry just didn't win?


One thing that I always found hypocritical about democrats and liberals is that they are always talking about how dissent is good and it is healthy to question the status quo but look what happens when I do. I get accused of being a republican here and was shunned by the people at another forum. If you people want to preach tolerance that is fine but alt east listen to people who have different views.

For the guy who sent me the private message. I am not ignoring you because I am ignorent. It is a very nice day today and i don't want to waste it here.

[natrat]

33. and i guess we won't know definitively

but that's the point-when there is no way to get an accurate count, let alone a recount, the system is broken beyond repair. If the course stays the same our country is not just toast,,it's burnt toast

[Swamp Rat]

60. Waaaaaaaa!

:cry:

You knew when you posted this thread that you'd get flamed. Hell, you said, "Now, I just wait for the flood of posts telling me why it was stolen." - Not only was your challenge aggressive, you actually stated "Normally I would post some long explanation here but I don't feel like it."

Well, HELL! You don't even feel like explaining your challenge, yet we have to just take it, AND take the trouble to explain why we don't agree, when you won't bother yourself. I'm not saying you are, but perhaps that's why some folks might think you are a freeper - this is intellectually lazy, repug behavior.

Grow a thicker skin like the rest of us. :spank:

[Jesus Saves]

35. I don't think it was stolen

2000, yes. 2004, he just got more votes.

[spindoctor]

36. I do

To rig a national election would be an awfully big conspiracy, and the reason that large conspiracies don't work is that sooner or later somebody always blows the whistle.

Hate to say it, but THIS time we really lost.

[LosinIt]

72. doesn't have to be a national conspiracy

only a few key states, only a few key people, welcome to the Electoral College system.

[Just Me]

38. I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP CHEATED CHEATED

CHEATED and STOLE both elections. The combination of Diebold debauchery and voter suppression equates to CHEATING and STEALING!!! :grr:

[zann725]

75. Question IS, how many more did they steal BEFORE 2000?

Reagan's "landslide" always was baffling. As was Nixon's clear(?) win in 1972.

[LibertyorDeath]

85. "Question IS, how many more did they steal BEFORE 2000?"

:toast:

[applegrove]

39. The GOP Machine & Rove stole the hearts & minds of many

republican voters.

That is actually worse and harder to go up against than simple machine fraud (which I do not agree took place at all). I say you choose the easy way out because it allows you to believe we can get rid of Bush sooner than 4 years from now.

Truth is we have sociopaths in the WH, your life has changed until you can get rid of them. And they stole the hearts & minds of Americans once..they could do it again.

It is a nightmare and it hurts to think about it. Believing 'a machine' somehow had a switch flipped makes you feel better.

I know it is hard to face up to great evil. Evil that can steal an electon easily by changing the hearts & minds of Americans and luring them into voting against their own best interests.

The 2000 election? Now Gore won that.

[Karenina]

40. Ah, the abject failure

of the American educational system... :eyes:

[hiley]

41. Stolen

Voting Machine
Fraud
Voter Suppression
Trickery
all of the above and more.
So the answer is yes, just without the Supreme Court this time.








http://www.seo-blog.org/5755_omfg_rageagainstthegop_machine

[UdoKier]

43. The election has not been proven to have been stolen.

But it has also not been proven that it was not. The point is not whether or not it was stolen, the point is that it was conducted on machines that will NEVER let us be sure because they cannot be hand counted. The touch screens are extremely hackable and cannot be trusted.


I'm confident personally that the GOP committed massive election fraud in the last election. I have no idea if it was enough to sway the election, but I feel positive that they did skew they vote with hacked-in algorithms that favor GOP candidates. But of course I can't prove it, because they have deliberately designed the machines so that the vote CANNOT be accurately and independently verified.

Why is this so hard for some people to understand?

[Selatius]

44. There is no real answer in my opinion

I've seen the evidence. What's unearthed so far shows there was some shady stuff in Ohio and several other states, but I don't think what's discovered thus far is enough to turn the election.

The election came out as close as it was because of the corporate news media failing to fact check claims, Kerry's staff handling the campaign poorly, and finally Kerry's failure to take a stand where his campaign advisors utterly failed.

However, the reason I say there is no answer instead of "not enough to affect outcome" is because I don't know how deep the fraud went, just that there was fraud at all.

I know there was fraud, but I don't know how far it went. There's some amount of voter fraud in most of the elections in this country since the beginning of this republic.

[demgurl]

45. I say who cares whether it was stolen.....

at this point we could not really do anything about it even if it was. And if God himself came down and declared it stolen, some people would still not believe it.

The real question is why are we not protecting our voting system? If you are an honest American then you will fight to make sure the results, from now on, are error proof as possible. I can only think of one reason you would not want a paper trail or mistake proof (as much as possible) elections - you are a dishonest person and want to win at all costs. What other reason could there be that someone would not want to tighten up the system?

So all you doubters (democrat or republican) please shut me, and others, up by providing a trail of evidence to prove all future wins. That is one fool proof way to keep people quiet and not be accused any more.

[rodeodance]

83. thanks, well said

[uppityperson]

46. There was an election in 2004?

[WI_DEM]

47. my feeling is that Bush won the popular vote and Kerry the electoral

I think that Bush did win the popular vote (his margins in the south were just too large), but I do think that Ohio may have been stolen from Kerry, had Kerry won Ohio he would have had the electoral vote. There was too much voter suppresion in heavily Democratic areas of Ohio. Plus, once again an over zealous Republican SEC of State who bent over backwards for his lord and master.

[Just Me]

59. My "feeling" is that, this WAR PRESIDENT lost both popular and electoral.

Of course, that is merely my "feeling".

My "feeling" is that, these f*ckers have simultaneously increased disillusionment and passion such that the "popular" ones simply gave up and only the passionate ones were left standing.

This president isn't "popular",...he and his political lot are oppressive, period!!!! They DRIVE PEOPLE AWAY,...ON PURPOSE!!!

Think about it.

[WI_DEM]

67. you know there is no need to be mocking

just because someone doesn't agree with you 100%. Think about it. I said I felt the election was stolen in Ohio, had Kerry won Ohio he would be president.

[Pachamama]

81. I find it most remarkable that * was able to "win" so decisively & yet now

4 months after his "re-election" victory, he has the all time lowest rating of his presidency and also of any 2nd term President, 4 months after being "re-elected"...45%...hmmm...how did he do it? :eyes:

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[merh]

53. There is a poll feature available.

You could post a poll, stolen or not stolen and leave it at that.

Wasn't something like this posted earlier in the week and the thread locked?

:shrug:

2000 stolen
2002 sotlen
2004 stolen

[Lone Pawn]

54. Not if you're not a donator you can't.

[merh]

58. He could donate,

:shrug:

[ChemEng]

64. I agree...

However, we need to have this discussion if we want to win in 2008, and I for one wnat to hear from everyone. A star by your nic doesn't make your comments more valuable than one without a star. Who knows, he or she may be a student?

Not that I'll agree with them either way!

[merh]

66. You could donate too

and we need to win 2006 first.

[ChemEng]

68. I have, honey.....

[merh]

69. Now don't make comments about posters with stars.

It would be silly.

[Lone Pawn]

55. I don't think it was stolen either.

I don't think they fought fair, but I don't think it was 'stolen.'

[RevolutionaryActs]

56. I look at it like this;

The 2000 election was stolen. Gore had more votes, and Jeb rigged Florida. So in my mind it doesn't matter if the 2004 election was stolen or not, because it shouldn't have happened in the first place, because Gore should have been up for reelection, not Bush.

You know? :shrug:

[sendero]

62. If...

... a tattoo appeared on your ass explaining the whole thing, I doubt you'd get it still.

Fortunately, the truthfulness of a situation does not depend upon your seeing it.

[meganmonkey]

65. If in doubt, but openminded - READ THE CONYERS REPORT!!!

Anyone reading this thread who doubts that the election was fraudulent - read this report. It is a comprehensive look at Ohio and demonstrates quite well that Kerry would likely have won if the will of the voters was truly measured by the election. It only covers one state, but it covers it well. It is a great starting point. I have gotten many skeptics to read it and almost all of them have recognized its importance:

http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/ohiostatusrept1505.pdf

[ariellyn]

76. Hey Jack...was the 2000 election stolen? n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

79. Okay, read my opinion of this and tell me what you think

I know that there was SOMETHING fishy in Ohio. I know that Kenneth Blackwell was a sleezy political hack who may have managed to discount or change a few votes the other way. I know that there was intimidation to keep voters from the polls such as the flyers saying "if you were registered by the NAACP you weren't really registered".

Was it enough to turn the state of Ohio to Kerry? I have no earthly idea.

I also know that if Kerry had hired the right strategists from the beginning, all of this shit wouldn't have been enough to make a difference. He would've been 5-7 points ahead in Ohio come election day and anybody who tried to rig an election to that magnitude would be caught and convicted.

Also, should we have voter-verified paper trails for computerized machines? Absolutely

[photophreak]

80. Have you heard of Clint Curtis?

http://www.bradblog.com/ClintCurtisSummary.htm

[LibertyorDeath]

86. This is a mugs game

They stole it they didn't steal it.

Corporate America is raping our collective ass and you're trying to figure out is it better with or without K-Y.

The whole thing is corrupt from bottom to top.

[B Calm]

87. Does Jack have any plans to reply, or is it true what was said

ealier in this thread about intelectual curiousity?

[Moderator]

91. Locking....

This has become inflammatory.



DU Moderator