[The Nashua Advocate] 2008 Final 4: Gore, Obama, Conyers, Dean [VOTE NOW]

[nashuaadvocate]

It's finally, here, folks: the Final Four of The Nashua Advocate's Presidential May Madness Poll.

The final candidates for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, after several weeks of voting and not a few major upsets/controversies, are Al Gore, Barack Obama, John Conyers, and Howard Dean.

Cast your votes here, and we hope you'll discuss your vote in this thread!

In the Elite Eight action just concluded, General Wesley Clark was disqualified from the Poll, Hillay Clinton was defeated, and top African-American pols Obama and Conyers moved one step closer to a monumental Senate/House blockbuster match-up in the final contest!

Phew!

Best wishes to all, and vote wisely,

The News Editor
The Nashua Advocate
Nashua, NH


*****

[liberalnurse]

1. I do not see a poll......

:shrug:

[nashuaadvocate]

3. VOTING INSTRUCTIONS HERE:

I'll make it easy for folks.

Voting is by e-mail. The brackets are

Gore versus Obama

AND

Conyers versus Dean

Cast a vote for one man out of each pair and send your vote to [e-mail]

It's that simple.

[liberalnurse]

Okay....

I was looking for a quick hit......:crazy:

[barbaraann]

2. What's with Clark voters double-voting???

n/t

[nashuaadvocate]

4. That 2nd link is broken. Go to website, scroll down to 2nd story to see..

...TNA's statement regarding the disqualification of General Wesley Clark from the Poll.

-- TNE

[barbaraann]

6. Thanks but I still don't understand.

Are Clark voters cheaters? Are Republicans posing as Clark voters?

The Democrats I know would never double vote so I just don't understand.

[kevsand]

12. Based on the thread at the site, TNA screwed up.

They didn't really understand the technology, and jumped to a conclusion that wasn't actually proved by the available facts. This conclusion was perhaps made easier by a pre-existing bias.

As it turns out, it was impossible to prove, and therefore entirely unwarranted. Now it's too late to gracefully admit it or correct it, so the mistake becomes persistently compounded.

[barbaraann]

16. Oh, I see.

Darn.

[nashuaadvocate]

33. Sorry, but that theory is a Clarkie theory advanced only by Clarkies.

Your theory (wholly guesswork) that our methodology was flawed was never proven, you don't--Jesus Christ--even know what technology we used, and you're basically just blowing smoke here.

-- TNE

[ClarkUSA]

37. Your accusation is still UNSUBSTANTIATED - you refuse to offer any proof

WHERE"S THE PROOF OF YOUR SO-CALLED METHODOLOGY? You refused to answer Ken-In-Seattle after he examined your blog's source code, which proves your
allegations not only false but technically impossible. He's got your number and so do we.

GIVE US PROOF. EVIDENCE. STOP SMEARING, OTHERWISE, we might just have to take this up with the management of blogspot.com

WHERE"S THE TRANSPARENCY, Mr. Election Reform Advocate?

You have been debunked time and again and still you persist in perpetuating the
smear against Clarkies.

Have you no shame or do the means justify the Gore/Dean ends for you?

Oh, and say hello to Cheswick 2.0 for us and tell her we give her STARK recognition here at DU.

[kevsand]

38. You used emails.

They're very well known technology. Been around for, oh, twenty years or so. The standards for the email protocols haven't changed significantly in that whole time. That's why we know you're blowing smoke. Get a grip, and then hire a techie.

[ClarkUSA]

5. This lie is only way Nashua Advocate could make Clark lose

This poll is rigged for a certain outcome that rhymes with Bore and Mean.

Nashua Advocate is very partisan and he wanted his candidate to beat Clark.
This was the only way he could pull it off. We have yet to have any proof even though he blabbed about tech stuff that was debunked by an IT expert (see comments).

This is still totally unsubstantiated - just watch the gangbang by banned Clarkhating DUers from People For Change at the Comments link provided below. Deaniac "Vigilante" Sozadee joins in with his 100% unsubstantiated smear, too. When asked repeatedly for proof and transparency, there is none provided.

Ken-In-Seattle is an IT expert and he punches holes through Nashua Advocate's weak puffed-up accusation. BTW, I never voted in this now-obviously rigged poll even though I knew about it because I didn't want to go through the trouble of registering.

Read the comments (the ones that haven't been conveniently erased by NA):

http://nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/2005/05/former-nato-supreme-allied-commander.html#comments

We're still waiting for PROOF, Nashua Advocate.

C'mon, that's what TRANSPARENCY IN VOTING is all about, right, Mr. Election Reform Advocate?

[Totally Committed]

32. I just don't understand why DU is allowing itself to be used this way.

This huckster is using DU to compile a list of DU members who do not vote as he and the people he represents want. (S)He has already published a voter's information online for all to see when she dared confront him/her/it. Anyone who has voted against their pre-determined outcome could be victimized.

It's a nasty piece of work.

TC

[nashuaadvocate]

34. Why the hell do you people think TNA is a Dean site?

We like Dean--as do most progressives--but what of that?

TNA is unaffiliated and always will be.

-- TNE

[Crunchy Frog]

41. I don't know whether it's a Dean site,

but its owner does appear to have a bias against Wes Clark as he demonstrated when he posted this on his blog (since scrubbed)

Not to make the obvious point all of us have been thinking but, in the interest of good manners and decorum, keeping to ourselves--but--good luck explaining to progressive Democrats why Wes wasn't even a registered Democrat thirty days before he joined the race for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination. Think that'll be much of an obstacle for him, among those who think you should belong to a Party if you're going to ask fifty million of its members for their votes...or, not so much a problem, in your (unbiased) view?


This would appear to indicate something more, and possibly a deeper agenda, than simple irritation at a few people double voting in his poll (if that did happen, and if indeed Clarkies were the only ones doing it).

[ClarkUSA]

48. It's clear from your method of making sure your candidate doesn't lose

to Wes Clark in your poll and the banned DUer Clarkhating Deaniac company you keep over at your blog.

The same banned Deaniac DUers flock there like Clarkhating gnats as if on cue on a fresh anti-Clark thread almost as if they were summoned by the blogger who just posted an anti-Clarkie rant on his homepage.

Answer my question: Where's the PROOF of your accusations, Nashua Advocate? Let's get transparent over methodology and source code, okay?

IT professionals who have opened Diebold's code have studied your source code, y'know, and what you're alleging is a complete fabrication.

[cry baby]

7. Uh - oh...

:popcorn:

[ClarkUSA]

8. LOL! It's good PR for his pathetic blog to advertise it this way, right?

Good way to pump up traffic to his blog by creating an unproven accusation against Clark supporters backed up by partisan Clarkhaters who've been banned by DU.

Read the comments at the link I provided - some good ones debunking this crap have already been been deleted.

These are accusations thrown out by Nashua Advocate with not one bit of proof - only hearsay. It's so easy to throw stuff out at an individual or a group, but to really give it credibility, facts are needed.

WHERE IS THE PROOF, NASHUA ADVOCATE?

Here's what an IT professional who looked into Nashua Advocate's accusations had to say:

I frequent the a few Clark sites and don't remember any mention of this poll. Looking around I would have to say I don't think I have ever visited. I am an IT professional and have 6 emailaddresses and the potential to create hundreds, all legal and all able to relay among themselves. I did not even vote once in this poll and still I have to ask how you think using the refferrer id from a web log can be used to indicate overvoting in a vote that from descriptions here was by email. Blowing smoke up the butts of those unfamiliar with how email and indeed html, cookies and php work is not really a challenge eh? Perhaps someone mispoke in their "explanation" of how you percieved the multiple votes. I will have to sign up for this site and poke around a bit and see what the source code will tell me about your how this site is constructed.

By Ken in Seattle, at 6:49 PM Ê
_____

Time for another post after looking around this xxx.blogger.com free blog site. I created a blog and looked around for the stats page. I know how to read raw refferer logs from apache or IIS. But what do I find?
http://help.blogger.com/bin/answer.py?answer=791
Indicates you don't even have web stats unless you have a friend at blogger.com who will parse yours from the database and forward them to you. What are you trying to pull? Where do you practice law? Lets pop your name into weslaw and see what your up to these days?
Here is your chance to reply with some pseudotechnical sounding BS or come clean about why you disqualified the only candidate likely to beat whatever lame Republican gets the blessing of the bush crime family next time.

By Ken in Seattle, at 8:15 PM Ê
_____

Lets hear some answers to the questions rather than more BS. You have no proof of your acusation and the only stats I can see that you have access to are from sitemeter.
Ba-dump-bump...
Time to offer even the slightest evidence to back up your claim. Remember some of us run our own webservers and mailservers. Some of us are even regularly in contact with people in the greater Seattle area, who own some of the sites you link to on the sidebar.
Do you think those who can read the diebold source code would accept your flippant explanations?
I am inclined to believe you actualy ARE a lawyer since I have found even fewer of them to have a clue how their computer works than even school teachers.

By Ken in Seattle, at 9:23 PM Ê

http://nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/2005/05/former-nato-supreme-allied-commander.html#comments

[Jai4WKC08]

9. Like we're supposed to believe

Gore beat Clinton, 71% to 29%, with no double-voting or contacting members of the Gore groups. When we know the Gore folks tried their damnest to do the same thing to the calculusman poll.

Yeah sure...

Face it. With Clark out of the running, you got no poll. It doesn't matter who wins.

Not that it much matters who wins anyway. But it's a shame you took the chickenshit way out.

[ClarkUSA]

10. This is what PROOF looks like, Nashua Advocate

Thread evidence of ballotbox stuffing of the calculusman poll by Gore folks who are encouraging it for days on this website, with the help of calculus man himself, no less. disqualify candidates on unproven accusations to get his candidate Gore to win:

No erasure of this thread yet:

http://s8.invisionfree.com/Al_Gore_Support/index.php?s=ba5f97755ee1ba5a258dc434a44fce7c&showtopic=2353&st=0

Nashua Advocate ignores the impossibly skewed Gore-Hilary vote at his poll and this above evidence already offered at his blog in the Comments link.... hmmm.

I wonder why??

ANSWER: This poll is being skewed/rigged to give a partisan result that rhymes with Bore/Mean.

People For Change much, Nashua Advocate?

[Totally Committed]

25. Well, I'll be darned!

Un-effing-believeable!

I would not have believed that if I didn't see it with my own eyes! Thank you. I saved that URL, too.

TC

[ClarkUSA]

30. Who would have thought that a Gore website encourages double-voting?

As well as emailed the poll links to their address books?

But the PROOF is at the link you wisely saved.

(Better save the information too in case the thread is deleted.)

Nashua Advocate doesn't care though...he wants Gore/Dean as badly as that Gore website in question.

[Totally Committed]

31. I wouldn't have believed it, as I said...

if I didn't see it with my own eyes.

And, this "person" running the poll published a voter's e-mail address online when she wrote to confront him about his accusations. Just note, this poll is being done my e-mail. What better way to get your e-mail to publish or misuse? Do not trust this poll or this pollster! It is a sham.

Personal disclaimer: I did not and will not vote in this poll. That fact that I would have to divulge my e-mail to this huckster first set off the bells and whistles for me, at least... and it should for you.

Beware!

TC

[ClarkUSA]

35. Isn't it SHOCKING? Reading the link is PROOF enough

I never voted in this rigged poll by Nashua Advocate because I thought it was alot of hassle to go through. Look at what Nashua Advocate did by publishing someone's email just because he had an axe to grind with them. Isn't that against blogspot.com legal agreement?

Last thing I want is to be spammed by Clarkhating banned DUers like Cheswick (who seems to sound alot like a few new members here who seem to like to attack Clark threads in a uniquely stark fashion).

[Crunchy Frog]

58. Not only the email address,

but the person's real name as well, along with vitriolic and hateful attacks on said person. I'm very glad that, although I knew of the existence of this poll, I listened to my instincts and avoided voting in it.

From where I'm sitting, it looks like it may have been designed as a deliberate setup against Clark and his supporters.

As I've mentioned before, I hope that people will be aware of this blog's attitude towards posting people's personal information before they go and give this person their email addresses.

[Pithy Cherub]

11. Takes a double-click to get to your site. wouldn't waste it there...

[dogman]

13. Who cares?

This site cheated me from being able to vote for the candidate of my choice. Take this pole and shove it. Best wishes and wise up.
On edit: I was at least able to vote for all candidates on the Diebold machine in my precinct.

[Totally Committed]

14. "Vote Wisely"... is that advice or a threat?

"In the Elite Eight action just concluded, General Wesley Clark was disqualified from the Poll"

This was an illegal disqualification, and bringing it here to DU, is just a public display of contempt for General Clark and his supporters.

"Best wishes to all, and vote wisely" -- or your candidate will be disqualified, too.


TC

[WI_DEM]

20. well, it already has been brought to DU

afterall in the ATA snafu a few weeks ago, Skinner himself alleged the same thing happening to DU polls as the Nassau Paper alleged. I'm sorry if that response is blunt, but I don't see why this poster should not post this poll here--even though it doesn't include Gen. Clark. I think, also, that the paper put it well--that it doesn't reflect badly on Gen. Clark and that they do think he will be a relevant candidate, but it doesn't reflect well on some of his supporters who don't support the idea of "one man, one vote". I say this as someone who has not endorsed any candidate for '08 (yet) and have tremendous respect for Gen. Clark.

[dogman]

21. I think you have your facts wrong but that's your problem.

This poll has nothing to do with DU. The point is they changed the game midstream. That is their choice. We can only inform people that it is a fraud. Have fun with it.

[kevsand]

23. Skinner never alleged

double or multiple voting. In fact, DU's system makes that nearly impossible on any practical level. As such, Skinner never accused Clark supporters of cheating in this fashion, which is what TNA is clearly alleging happened there. Therefore, your statement that "Skinner himself alleged the same thing happening to DU polls as the Nassau Paper alleged" is literally untrue.

[ClarkUSA]

24. Correction: Skinner did not allege double-voting at all.

If you read the thread, it's clear that it was a set-up from the People for Change vultures who descended on cue.

Read about the Gore folks yet? No one seems to care about actual PROOF, eh?

[Jai4WKC08]

26. You are misremembering the "ATA snafu"

Total apples and oranges from this nonsense.

There was never any question of multiple voting here at DU. As far as I can tell, it's not even possible to vote multiple times here, not without creating sock-puppets. Such was never alleged and no supposed Clark sock-puppets were tombstoned. Skinner's complaint against the Clarkies was that he felt we shouldn't be posting links to DU threads on Clark-related blogs and message boards. Which I think is absurd, but whatever.

As for this goofball NA poll, there is little likelihood that anyone would even find it except thru links from other sites. Like the OP here, which obviously the guy running the website doesn't mind since he posted it. But he alleged multiple voting when he has no proof of any. The only evidence he ever offered were that some in the same household were voting more than once from the same IP address. Well, no shit Sherlock.

What's more, he's lying in his latest round of the "poll" because he told us last week that he had no choice but to disqualify Clark because he couldn't tell how many votes were "illegal" but then he tells us this week that Dean would have won anyway. I say, bullshit.

[Adelante]

43. WI_DEM, No

It is not possible to vote multiple times on DU polls. What Skinner objected to was vote calls to DU members that a poll was running on DU. I disagreed on that point and there is no DU rule against it; however, we are respecting Skinner's wishes.

[AP]

60. Multiple screennames = multiple votes. How many did Cuban_Liberal have?

He could have voted all of them.

[Adelante]

61. Are you accusing Clark supporters of using sockpuppets?

Even Skinner didn't do that, and if he had, we would have been tombstoned.

Yet, we're still here, AP.

[dogman]

62. Your right.

Every thread I remember reading he wa touting Edwards. Are you willing to have Edwards removed from polls because of that? If a few individuals bother to multiple vote, does that skew the polls that much. I don't think any one takes these polls that seriously. The last thing they should be used for is to divide Democrats.

[FrenchieCat]

72. Was Cuban Liberal a Clarkie?

Was Padraig a Clarkie?

was John O'Neillsmemories and his reincarnated WarisaRacket Clarkies?

Was Cheswick and Mollie Stark Clarkies?

It appears that The Voyage of the DU banned & sockpuppets, inc., etal. don't include many, if any Clarkies.....

[Crunchy Frog]

45. Vote wisely,

or we may post your email address and real name, along with vitriolic personal attacks against you.

Maybe that's how it should have been phrased.:shrug:

[enigmatic]

15. Does anybody have a pacifier?

I think we need to stick it into the responses in this thread.

Seriously.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[WI_DEM]

17. Voted for Dean, even though he isn't running

after all this poll is just for fun anyway. It's a shame for some people take it too seriously. It is more or less just something for political writers to talk about and has absolutely no relevance for 2008.

[enigmatic]

18. It's not only a shame..

it's flat-out creepy.

[Crunchy Frog]

50. Some of the stuff that this person posted on his site

was extremely creepy. You're correct on that score.

[ClarkUSA]

27. It's a shame for partisan blogs to rig their polls for a certain outcome

This I take seriously, especially coming from a self-promoting election reform advocate blog.

[Crunchy Frog]

49. It's a shame that the person running this poll

advertised it as "being for fun" and then took it so seriously as to post private information from one of the participants, and use it as a forum for the directing of vitriolic, hate filled invective against a whole group of Democrats.

That's what I call taking something over the wall seriously.

This just for fun poster is now using DU as a forum to post fun things like:

"You Clarkies are possibly the most pathetic bunch of zeros ever." and

"You people are SICK."

Yeah, sounds like a barrel of laughs.

[ClarkUSA]

51. It's a shame that Nashua Advocate is a proven (and deleted) Clarkhater

Thanks for letting us all know the true face behind the innocent mask and the deliberate smearjob against Clarkies.

Why it's almost like having dear Cheswick 2.0 back at DU. Such a stark
comparison, I know. Good golly, Miss molly!

[pkspiegel]

19. Is this that same dumb poll?

Is this the poll where Clark was ousted because one person voted twice, allegedly? He was so far ahead that no one could beat him, and that must have upset this "news editor" because it is clear he wants Dean or Gore. OK, Dean is a good guy, but he has a job already. Gore is a good guy, but why afraid of Clark who would clearly be the front runner?

I hate these "fixed" polls. Not as bad as fixed elections, but annoying nonetheless.:crazy:

[jen4clark]

22. No thanks, but thanks anyways

I do want to say thank you Nashua guy for all the work you've done on election fraud. Between that and having no mainstream media sources putting out the truth in this country, I wish you'd rally everyone behind a cause where we can come together and make a difference.

Good luck on your poll. I hope it doesn't turn out that you set up us Clarkies. There are tons of us out here and as you know we DO have a formidable enemy that will take all of us working together to defeat.

[sybil]

28. I object to your use of this forum.

What gives you the right to promote this obviously CORRUPTIBLE, already CORRUPTED poll, here at this forum? Why should anyone choose to participate, since it is clearly evident that TNA's agenda is to single out and impugn the integrity of one candidate's supporters?

Word to the wise: TNA went over the line in defense of it's polling practices, when it posted (since removed), one bloggers private e:mail information publicly online. Stay away stay away......

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[kevsand]

40. Well, that was certainly productive.

Well thought out, as well. Thank you for your input. We'll give it all due consideration, I assure you.

[yebrent]

42. Thank you!

I was beginning to feel like my fellow Clark supporters were going overboard, until your post betrayed your true nature. Shame on you.

[Crunchy Frog]

39. Anybody voting in this poll should be aware of the fact

that you are required to give your email address, and that the person holding the poll may, and has, posted on his site, the email address and real name of a poll participant.

If you feel that this information should be treated as private, my advice would be to not participate in this poll.

For the record, I'm a "pathetic zero Clarkie" who did not participate in this poll, but who was aware of the fracas generated by it, and was reading the site when one of the participants had her personal information posted there.

[Adelante]

44. "pathetic zero Clarkie"

That would be me :hi:

Of course, the only way we could prove it would be to send in our email addresses and possibly have them published to the Internet world. :puke:

[JI7]

46. it seems the site probably has something against Clark and/or

Clark supporters if they are doing that.

thanks for the warning.

[Tinoire]

47. Thank you. Just sent in my vote. n/t

[JNelson6563]

52. Such drama queens!

Thsi gaggle reminds me of my 16 yr. old daughter and her friends. High drama, little substance and boringly predictable antics.

Let it go people, it's an insignificant poll on an ovscure internet discussion board. Sheesh!

Julie

[Crunchy Frog]

54. Reminds me of all the drama

and orchestrated, feigned outrage, that was to be seen in the ATA forum after Cheswick got herself tombstoned.

There's certainly more than one group of drama queens here at DU isn't there?

[dogman]

55. Insignificance seems to be inspirational to some.

It merited a post from you.

[ClarkUSA]

56. So disdainful, aren't we!

Being smeared is wrong and we confronted the source. A smear is a smear. Clarkistas will defend themselves and Wes Clark's right to have his votes counted FAIRLY, no matter how "insignificant" that reason may seem to you.

Just as so many "drama queens" felt they had to do in the too-numerous-to-be-counted "Letter to Dennis Kucinich" threads and predictable variations thereof -- though I didn't have the poor manners to go into those threads and denigrate their/your efforts.

[Zensea]

71. I care deeply about having votes counted

when I am in the voting booth on election day.
or the votes at a caucus or a convention.
But on an internet poll which is inherently nonscientific?
Inherently a selective sample of those who have a computer or access to one and who happen to stumble across the poll by chance or direction...
What is really the big deal?
Seems blown out of proportion to me.
I cared deeply about the fact that Gore "lost" the election in 2000 and that Dean didn't get the nomination in 2004, but it doesn't make a shred of difference to me if either one of them win the poll at Nashua Advocate.
I think a little perspective is needed here.

[Crunchy Frog]

75. The big deal is the smearing.

I don't care about this poll. I don't care who wins it, or whether or not it's rigged. It's the internet, and hardly a scientific way of measuring opinion. I had no interest in voting in this poll.

WhatI do find objectionable is the mass smearing of Clark supporters that this person did on his blog. I would object if it had been any other candidate's supporters as well.

What's even worse is that one of the participants in this poll had her email address and real name, along with vitriolic attacks on her, posted by this person on his site.

This person is soliciting email addresses and then abusing the trust of participants in this poll by publicizing them.

I do find that a big deal.

[Zensea]

76. Well

I see that stuff has been pulled now.
When I read it the other day, I don't remember seeing her real name, but I'm willing to admit my memory might be faulty. I do remember seeing several email addresses though.
If they had access to her real name where did they get it? No one has access to my real name in an email unless I want them to have access to it. So I wonder if there's a little more to the story. Sounds like it might have already been public information at least in the legal sense.
It does seem slimy to publish it just the same. So getting some perspective on that portion of the question leads to saying it is important.
However as for the other aspects I think getting some perspective leads to just forgetting about it. It's not that important and it looks like you agree somewhat.
My point was really about all the other fretting about the poll itself.
I also don't think NA particularly smeared Clark supporters as a whole, although smearing some, so I wouldn't characterize it as a mass smearing.
Probably depends where you're sitting how you see it though.

[Crunchy Frog]

78. Most of the smearing has been scrubbed from the site by now.

It was extremely hateful and vitriolic nonetheless, and was seen by many people before it was scrubbed.

The post that had the person in question's email address and real name in it was pulled from the site pretty quickly, but not before it was posted to a different site. They apparently googled for her real name, so I'm sure that in some sense it was "publicly available", but it was nevertheless extremely dirty of them IMO to post it publicly without her permission. It remains to this day, posted at that other site, along with the absolutely vitriolic and hateful things that this person posted about her. Unjustified IMO, even if she did "cheat" on a little "for fun" internet poll.

For that reason, I am advising people to be cautious about participating in this poll, as the person running it has demonstrated a willingness to engage in this type of behavior.

The poll itself is unimportant IMO.

[FrenchieCat]

65. Well you know us Clarkies....

Drama Queens is our fame...and being an obsession for others is the game.

[Adelante]

68. Right behind you

[high density]

53. I vote for Wes Clark

Oh yeah, that's right... you don't like him much, do you?

:eyes:

[sharonking21]

57. Either learn how to count votes

without discarding valid votes and whole candidacies or do not pass yourself off as an election reform site. Your methods are quackery and would be immediately rejected by any election judge.

[janx]

59. So all we do is pick two out of the four and send you an

email with those names?

I haven't participated in this poll before.

[nashuaadvocate]

64. Yep, that's it. n/t

[ClarkUSA]

79. See post #10 for how to vote, courtesy of Gore supporters

[FrenchieCat]

63. Not that Nashua Advocate poll!

That was not a poll, that was more like a Florida election...where only certain votes count, and others just don't.

Actually Florida had a better system of voting. At least there...when they found overvotes, instead of not counting any Gore votes, or disqualifying Gore from the race, they only threw out the overvotes.

A site, where they set up New Rules in the middle of the voting....rules not mentioned when they solicite for email addresses advertising said poll:

New Rule! Multiple computers on one router (like say...at an office) will count only as one vote, no matter how many email accounts or how many employees.

New Rule! Family members all have to confer and decide who will get the household's one vote, even if they all have separate email accounts. That includes families of twos, threes, fours, etc... Also includes roomates, etc., etc.

New Rule! Instead of throwing out the "alleged" double votes, simply throw out the candidate.

New Rule! If a website is an election reform website, please do not question it's integrity or vote count methods or anything else.

New Rule! It's an election reform site. Just give them your email address and shut up already.

New Rule! If you're accused of cheating, just get over it!

New Rule! There is no such thing as perfect democracy. Learn to live it with, or go directly to hell.

[Adelante]

66. LOL -- Frenchie is the WINNER of this poll.

;)

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

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

[dogman]

69. Who did the Republican site keep off of their poll?

Or don't they play that way?

[Adelante]

70. I haven't voted in your poll yet

But you don't WANT my vote.

[FrenchieCat]

73. Hey, how come I already know that the winner will be .......

:grouphug: (drum roll, please!)

AL GORE AND/OR HOWARD DEAN!

:patriot:

OH YEAH!
:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:
(I've known for 4 weeks already):shrug:

[Crunchy Frog]

74. I think this poll may have been inspired by the Republicans

in more ways than one. This statement of yours on your blog would not seem to support your assertion that the disqualification of Clark was "unfortunate and regrettable".

Not to make the obvious point all of us have been thinking but, in the interest of good manners and decorum, keeping to ourselves--but--good luck explaining to progressive Democrats why Wes wasn't even a registered Democrat thirty days before he joined the race for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination. Think that'll be much of an obstacle for him, among those who think you should belong to a Party if you're going to ask fifty million of its members for their votes...or, not so much a problem, in your (unbiased) view?


As a "pathetic zero Clarkie" and a non participant in your poll, I believe that there was an agenda behind it, and an intention to arrive at a predetermined outcome.

I'm not certain what the legality is of posting someones name and email address on your site without their permission, but I believe it is being looked into.

[ClarkUSA]

77. SOME PEOPLE ARE SUCH SHAMELESS LIARS!

Inspired by a GOP website, eh? Interesting and revealing, indeed.

You still persist yet you give not one shred of evidence or proof of your accusation
against an entire group of Democratic supporters.

Rigged polls by a sociopathic lying Clarkhater is really such a sorry tribute to both Gore and Dean.

Is it really this easy to open a blogspot.com blog, rig a poll, and then make false accusations?

[Moderator]

80. Locking

This thread has run it's course as well as developed in to a flame war.