Bush in 2004 Won New Voters 2 to 1?

[BeFree]

In 2004 there were 122 Million votes
In 2000 there were 104 M votes; Making for 18M more votes in 2004

Bush is said to have received 62 million votes in 2004.

Bush received 50M votes in 2000.

So somehow Bush received 12 million more votes in 2004. Or so it is said.

John Kerry, it is said, received only 6 million of the new votes in 2004.

12M for Bush vs. 6M for Kerry.

Well now, that just doesn't seem to be able to be explained; Indeed, the raw numbers from the exit polls contraindicate that difference. The raw numbers showed Kerry with 12M of those voters, and Bush with the 6M.

And plain common sense tells ya Bush wasn't that well liked, plus, taking into consideration the huge democratic turnout in 2004, it makes ya wonder, doesn't it?

[wisteria]

1. Yes, it does make you wonder and I doubt it is even true. n/t

[Eric J in MN]

2. The fact that polls showed more 2000-Bush-voters planning to vote for Kerry...

...than 2000-Gore-voters planning to vote for Bush, also makes Bush's victory suspicious.

[The Count]

3. Yup. All hermaphrodite aliens (as Kerry was leading amongst men & women of Earth)

No one wondered who those people who loved W more in 2004 than in 2000 were.
Considering the amazing crowds at Kerry's rallies, and the busing of the same stooges all over for W's....

[jobycom]

4. Not that I don't have questions about 2004, but, what?

So you are saying that all of the same people who voted in 2000 voted in 2004, and exactly the same way, and that the entire difference between the two years were new voters. That doesn't sound likely. I knew several people who voted for Bush in 04 and Gore in 00, claiming that since we were "at war" they didn't want to change leaders. It's mathematically possible, even if the 18 million additional voters were the total number of new voters, that Kerry got 12 mil, Bush got 6 mil, and enough of the returning voters changed from Dem to Repub to account for that difference. You'd have to show that that wasn't the case.

I'll point out, too, that for your assumptions to hold true, you'd have to have no one die, and no one reach voting age, since that would throw a whole new dynamic into the equation, since the voters would be different voters.

[BeFree]

5. Good questions

There is another thread with all the answers over in Election Reform. But lets run a few by ya here.

First.. if the numbers of Gore 2000 voters who switched to Bush in 2004 is anywhere near enough to sway the election then it stands to reason that new voters would also be swayed. But no one is saying the new voters were swayed to favor Bush. So to hold to that there was a substantial Gore to Bush vote is a contradiction. The pre-polls belie it.

Second... factoring in all the deaths, etc, Bush would have had to have gotten 20M more votes than he got in 2000. After all the affairs from Enron to the Patriot Act, and with his job approval numbers plunging from 90% to 48%, it hardly seems likely that 20 million people who did not vote in 2000 went to the polls and voted Bush, in 2004.

And given the fantastic Dem turnout in 2004 (I saw people who hadn't campaigned in years get off their butts) it makes ya wonder: How'd he do it?

[jobycom]

8. Too many shortcuts in that reasoning for me to grasp it

On your first point, I don't see the reasoning. Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see why the new voters would have to follow the same trend as returning voters. Maybe you've seen exit polling or other data on the turnout of actual returning voters versus new voters that proves your point, but barring that, there's no logical reason to assume that the Dems couldn't recruit more new voters, while the Repubs swayed older voters. In fact, IIRC, I have seen evidence to suggest just that.

On your second point, I don't see that number of 20M making sense. I see Bush getting 12 million more voters, and Kerry getting 8 million more votes than Gore, from 2000 to 2004. That's 20M total new votes. Nader got 2.8M votes in 00, and under .5M in 04. That's a very rough net of 18M more votes in 04 from 08. If Kerry got 12 M of the new voters, as the OP said the exit polls showed, and he got the 2M Nader voters, that means he got 45M of Gore's voters. That leaves 5 M unaccounted for. Presumably, these are the votes who swung to Bush. Take Bush's 62M total voters, subtract the 50M he got in 00, subtract the 6M the OP claimed he got from the new voters, that's 6M voters he picked up in the swing from 00. I rounded rather brutally, but that's still a long way from a 20M swing, and it is certainly within my rounding errors of those Kerry lost--assuming the OP was right about the breakdown of new voters (I'm only going from those numbers, since the OP's analysis is the only one I'm talking about).

The problem with my rough analysis is the same as the OPs, of course. I'm equating those new voters with the voting increase, whereas I'm not really sure how many new voters there were. The OP says Kerry got 12M new voters, and Bush got 6M. I don't see that as possible. That would mean that there were exactly as many new voters are the voter increase from 00. That excludes deaths and people who decided not to vote. But that's my point. The OP's numbers don't add up. Say 3M voters died or stayed at home. That would mean 21 M new voters, so there is a loss of 3M in the OPs numbers. That can't be reconciled.

But back to your 20M. For that number to be accurate--for Bush to have gotten 20M more votes than he got in 2000, and taking the OP's numbers of 18M additional voters with 12M going Kerry, you would have to have at least 14M voters from 2000 dying or not voting by 2004 (Bush's 6M share of the additional voters, plus 14M to equal 20M). Subtract that 14M from the total Kerry votes (since they are being added to Bush's total), and Kerry got only 31M of Gore's voters, meaning Kerry, just to match the numbers of votes recorded in 2004, would have had to pick up the 12M of the voter increase, plus 16M of the new voters who replaced the 00 voters, meaning he would have had to get 28M new voters. (31M+28M=59M total votes).

So if Bush got 20M, Kerry got 28M. That's close to the proportion the OP claims the exit polls showing the split of new voters.

My point is the OP's figures don't work, and I'm not sure about your new voter numbers, either. You are basically claiming there were 20M more Bush voters, which would mean 28M more Dem voters, for a total of 48M new voters. That's almost 40% new voters in 2004. I don't know the numbers, but that sounds high, although the proportions stay roughly the same as the OP's exit poll cites above.

I know, too much figuring. Probably no one will read this far. It's the bookkeeper in me coming out.

[OnTheOtherHand]

12. I think you nailed it

Take Bush's 62M total voters, subtract the 50M he got in 00, subtract the 6M the OP claimed he got from the new voters, that's 6M voters he picked up in the swing from 00.

By spooky coincidence, I posted a few hours earlier over on the ER board: "I think maybe about 6 to 6 1/2 million Gore voters voted for Bush." And, as I pointed out there, it's supported by the results of the 2000-2004 National Election Study panel, although the sample size is limited.

The OP says Kerry got 12M new voters, and Bush got 6M. I don't see that as possible.

It isn't, and even the "raw" exit poll figures don't support it. (For instance, here you can see 59%-39%.) This gets pretty complicated, because we know that many people will say they voted in a prior election when they really didn't, and that messes up all the calculations (if we try to use the exit polls). But even an accurate count of new voters would be nowhere near 48 million. Honestly, I won't bother to figure out what went wrong there.

Since you bothered to work this hard, you might be interested in part of my TruthIsAll FAQ: http://inside.bard.edu/~lindeman/TIA_FAQ/point5.html If you are really hard-core, you could read the conference paper I link to there, in which I presented some alternative estimates of how Gore, Bush, other, and "new" voters really voted -- although I don't think I converted the estimates to millions of votes.

[BeFree]

17. Here

You supplied a link to exit-polls. Well, that exit poll is not a set of raw numbers, it is the cooked numbers. Look at the time: 7am in the morning. At that time the exit poll was rolled into the returns from the crooked voting machines. I suggest you quit using the cooked numbers and stick with the raw numbers from 12 am. You know better than that, or so I thought.

[OnTheOtherHand]

42. actually, you're wrong

Look at the number of respondents. Or, if you prefer, look at page 9 of the PDF here:
http://www.exitpollz.org/mitof4zone/US2004G_3798_PRES04_NONE_H_Data.pdf

I don't know why the time stamp is wrong on the exit poll -- I don't know whether it was wrong in the original, or whether the people who were reconstructing "CNN as it was on election night" messed up. But they got that table right, at least.

[BeFree]

13. Oh yeah?

You've seen evidence to suggest that Pubs swayed Gore voters to vote for Bush in numbers that run 2 to 1? I call bull shit on that. You are saying that there were millions more Gore voters who went Bush than there were Bush voters who went Gore. Like 6 million more. And then all the other new voters split evenly? But the fact is that exit-poll raw numbers show that returning voters were won narrowly by Kerry.

Secondly, if you go back and read my reply to you I said that "factoring in deaths, etc." Bush would have had to gain the 20 million, yet you go off as if you never saw that.

Very simply this is the case: If you believe that the election was fair and square - that there were no stolen votes by the republican owned voting machines - then your arguments make sense. And to believe that you have to totally ignore the exit-poll raw numbers.

[jobycom]

14. None of your points are what I said.

Last first, I started by saying I had issues with the 2004 election.

Second to last, I included "Factoring in deaths" in my discussion. WOrk through it again, it was the cornerstone of my point.

First, what I showed was the unlikelihood of the OP's numbers and assumptions. Taking them as a starting point, 6M Gore voters would have had to switch to Bush. If you don't find that likely, then you, too, question the OP's numbers. That was my point.

[BeFree]

15. Simply

Bush is said to have won by 3M. You say that 3M came from formerly Gore voters, and I say that's BS, and the exit poll raw numbers say so.

Look, if you believe the Pubs didn't steal the election then you can cook up all the numbers you like, but please, don't insult us with "It was all former Gore voters who gave the election to Bush".

[jobycom]

20. And if you believe the Repubs did steal the election you can cook up all

the numbers you like, too. So far I haven't commented on whether I think the election was stolen, aside from saying I had questions about the 2004 election, too. In fact, I said it twice, and you've ignored it both times. And you have yet to give me any numbers aside from your assurance that something you read somewhere said Bush had to get 20M new voters to make the numbers work. Since you haven't explained that, I can only assume you don't really know where those numbers come from. You haven't bothered to comment on the actual calculations I did based on the number you provided, nor on the numbers the OP provided. Since the only thing I was commenting on--and I'll say this until you stop misrepresenting me--was the OP's claim, those are the only numbers and conclusions I have commented on.

Every post I've seen so far on the "stolen" election relies either on a complete misunderstanding of exit polls (assuming that the raw data of exit polls actually means something by itself), or on bad calculations. If I'm going to oppose conservatives for bad math and bad science, I'm going to call my own party on it, too. I have seen legite evidence suggesting a lot of cheating in Ohio in 2004, and I do believe a lot of cheating occured. But I don't know yet how extensive it was, and I can see that the OP's "logic" is proof of nothing except how badly the OP wants to believe the election was stolen. Ditto for you, so far.

If you've got actual numbers based on real, not presumptive, evidence, or if you've got a flaw in my post with all the mathematical calculations based only on yours and the OP's numbers, present it. All this "You sad, pathetic little dupe, you just don't get it" nonsense is just evasion, and frankly. it makes me doubt you do know what you are talking about. Which makes me less likely to believe your conclusions.

The way you win an argument with an intelligent opponent, or more appropriately in this case, the way you convince a skeptic who is calling out for evidence but is otherwise predisposed to like your conclusions, is to present evidence and airtight logic, and then answering the questions that skeptic raises about your conclusions and evidence until that skeptic no longer has any doubt. I'm waiting on the first attempt in that equation. And this isn't just over your post, this is over most of what I've seen posted on the 2004 election. I have seen it proven that civil rights were squashed, that the Republicans used hardball, often illegal, efforts to suppress vote based on race, that there have been issues with electronic voting machines that, anecdotely, favor the Republicans... I've seen a lot of irregularities, in other words, which proves that the Republicans were cheating their asses off. And I've seen plenty of evidence to prove that cheating COULD occur with electronic counting and electronic voting machines, just as it has occured for centuries in this nation with every other system we've devised. What I haven't seen is direct evidence, either real or mathematical, that there was systematic cheating from the top level to blatantly steal the election in 04. I can believe it might have happened. I can even suspect it did happen. But I'm not a conservative, so faith-based arguments aren't enough for me. I need to see that it DID happen. And none of what you or the OP provided comes close to that, so far. In fact, quite the opposite--the numbers and assumptions are so far off that they can be dismissed easily by someone predisposed to believe them.

Now, if you've got more, show me. But quit just answering with dodges, misunderstandings of my posts, and personal insults. This is DU, it's a place where we rise above that.

[BeFree]

23. You are caught in the middle

And you stepped right in it.

You have seen the evidence of the machines counting their votes one way- the pub way, and you don't have any evidence that contradicts that, but yet you need to be persudaed further? You want me to smack you over the head with a smoking gun before you will believe?

The dodge is your doing. After crunching all the numbers, you must realize that what you are claiming is that the margin of Bush victory comes from 3M Gore 2000 voters who switched to Bush in 2004. OTOH said so in his posts here and there and if you haven't taken the time to understand that then nothing I wrote will help.

And that is where you stepped in.

[OnTheOtherHand]

43. you might have read post #18

Somehow I don't think you just won the argument.

"...it was 3M Gore 2000 voters who carried the day for Bush, and everyone else split their votes evenly."

I have trouble believing that you are that confused. Bush officially got 62 million votes. Where do you get off singling out 3 million Gore voters? Who is supposed to be persuaded by this? :shrug:

[fuzzyball]

46. If GOP was so good at stealing elections, were they on vacation in 2006?

I am more convinced than ever that the election was not
stolen from Kerry in 2004. As for the 2000 election, it
is entirely another matter. If the SCOTUS would have allowed
a 3rd recount who knows how many hanging chads would have
swung the results in Florida.

[blm]

16. I worked NC HQ in 2004, and we had MANY Repubs coming in angry at Bush for deficit

and Iraq war. In fact, we would sell out yard signs in ONE WEEKEND that totaled ALL of 2000 yardsign sales.

And let's not forget that after 2000, Rove himself was tageting an additional 4 million votes to win 2004. All of a sudden he found 11 million more?

[jobycom]

18. And I knew many Gore voters who went to Bush.

Anecdotes are useless in proving anything, especially when they are filtered through one side or the other. If by NC HQ you mean the Dem Party HQ, then you will obviously see more of one conversion than the other.

I work at a blue collar level, and was active in the party here in Austin at that time, and I did see a lot of people who said they voted for Gore, but were voting for Bush because of the "war." These weren't die-hard Democrats, these were the swing voters. I also had a couple of friends confess after the election that they voted Bush even though they had been claiming they were going to vote Kerry.

And I saw Nader voters who went Kerry, and I saw Dems who hadn't voted in a decade lining up for Kerry. I didn't see many, if any, die-hard Repubs going to Kerry, yet. In fact, most of the die-hards I knew had a bunker mentality. They believed the swiftboating, and felt Kerry was going to surrender us to the terrorists, legalize abortion, and lead the country into Hell. Literally.

My stories don't prove anything, any more than yours do, is my only point.

[countmyvote4real]

6. We would also need a verified, open source eVote tabution.

In every place where it doesn't exist. None as frar as I know.

[Colobo]

7. "Fear votes"

The terrorist factor that was not present in '00 helped Bush. The war in Iraq was a year old, people still wanted to believe in Bush and his "judgement", the "Kerry-is-a-flip-flopper-and-America-can't-afford-him/Osama-is-rooting-for-Kerry" lines in the minds of millions... I know, because that was my first presidential election, and I was in Bush's side. You had to see how many young people I met that believed all that BS and volunteered for Dubya.

It's sad...

[Febble]

9. Well, some answers

are suggested in this plot:



and also in this paper:

http://inside.bard.edu/~lindeman/too-many.pdf

[enough already]

10. 2004 was stolen

Plain and simple.

[mnhtnbb]

24. Well documented by Mark Crispin Miller in his book...

Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election & Why They'll Steal the Next One Too (Unless We Stop Them)

[goclark]

41. Plain and simple, you are right! Stolen in 04 and some in 06

The only reason that FORD lost in TN ~ was they had to cook the numbers.

I live in CA and I will never believe that ARNOLD won--- never.
Other Democrats won on the ticket and Arnold WON --- everyone I know hated Arnold in 04 and 06 too.

Say I'm crazy, I don't care but they stole the elections they thought they could steal and had to give up the others because the pressure was on the CON MACHINES.

We have got to keep the pressure on and jail the criminals like that fool in Ohio!

[underpants]

11. No

[Radical Activist]

19. The Bush strategy was to turn out the conservative base in '04.

It worked. Democrats should think about that.

[BeFree]

21. The Bush strategy was

To steal the election using their new-fangled voting machines to count the votes in their favor.

It is simply incredible to read, as others have posted here, that the margin of victory came from the 3M voters who voted for Gore in 2000.

Their claim is that all the *new* votes went equally to Kerry and Bush and the margin of *victory* came from the Gore 2000 voters. Incredible.

[Radical Activist]

22. Bush still won the national popular vote.

There isn't a Republican using Diebold in all 50 states, even if it was stolen in Ohio.
Accurate voting machines is important but we can't use it as a cop-out for our own failings.

[BeFree]

26. Ignorance is bliss, eh?

Your claim is based on the pub issued results that came from the same hand that fed you the story of WMD in Iraq. And here you are, eating it up and shitting it out.

Had you been studying this issue for the last two years, you would see that while Kerry didn't have a landslide win, he did win, as evidenced by the independent studies undertaken by hundreds of citizens and not reported by M$M.

Now in this thread it has come down to this to explain the Bush victory in 2004 - it was 3M Gore 2000 voters who carried the day for Bush, and everyone else split their votes evenly. As incredible as WMD in Iraq.

And it looks like you are eating it up.

[Radical Activist]

29. well

I guess a really shitty, jerk-off attitude is bliss too?

Results don't come from the media. They come from the thousands of county clerks and secretaries of states that come from BOTH parties across the nation. Which means, even if some places had election fraud, only a complete moron would think every county in the nation had the same election fraud. Ohio is not the nation. Bush won the popular vote. Stop making excuses for a poor candidate who lost.

[BeFree]

32. Only a complete moron?

And you are preaching to me about a shitty attitude?

If you believe that Bush won the popular vote then I say: Prove it.

All you can do is show me what the M$M told you, all the while ignoring the hundreds of citizen investigations that conclude Kerry actually won.

The evidence, on the scales of justice, tips mightily in favor of the election being stolen, but if you are blissfully ignorant of that then that's where you are.

[Radical Activist]

34. I didn't know the media

owned the secretary of state and county clerk's office of every state and county in the nation. That is where the results come from, you know. Wow, learn something new every day.

And yes, I was giving you a taste of your own attitude to see how you like it.

[BeFree]

35. Cute

But you did not poll each and every SoS and county clerk's office, did you?

The point is that the M$M has not reported on the citizen investigations that have taken place, so therfore you are blissfully ignorant of how the numbers came about.

Now, were you not blissfully unaware then you would know that the election was stolen - not by the clerks - but by Tom Delay's HAVA. You don't know about HAVA? See... blissfully unaware.

[Radical Activist]

36. Since

I ran a voter registration drive in 2004, I probably know more about HAVA than you. It was my job.
It was even in a state with a Democratic Secretary of State, with no diebold machines, that showed now inclination to steal the election, as must have happened everywhere in your grand conspiracy that somehow reached the entire nation enough to change the popular vote totals. Fraud happens in every election but the burden of proof is on you if you're going to make the claim that it was massive enough to change the national popular vote total.

[BeFree]

37. Burden of proof

Is not on me, it is on the government to prove that my vote was counted as cast. It can't prove that since there is no record of my vote, hell, when I voted I couldn't tell where my vote went. At least here you see the electronic result confirmed..... not so with my vote. Now why would anyone ever conceive to make my vote disappear like that? But that is just what HAVA did.

Over 60% of the votes cast in 2004 were cast on the HAVA machines. Given that bush won by 3M votes, out of 122M, it would have taken leass 1 vote per precinct in those using HAVA machines to steal the election.

[Radical Activist]

38. So you got nothing.

Ok then. Stop making claims you can't back up.

Some HAVA machines do have a paper trail, as in my own county, so you still got nothing. Maybe you didn't know that about HAVA?

[BeFree]

39. The old "Paper trail" shake off.

Do you know how many of you precious paper trails were examined in 2004? About 0.001 percent, is my guesstimate. Nothing. You are the one with nothing. No awareness, no back-up and no history.

So stop making claims you can't back up.

[skipos]

47. You are engaged in a useless argument.

Not that I am telling you something you don't know.

There is no reason for "Kerry lost" people to argue with "Bush stole it" people.

Even when the Diebold Defeatists were claiming 05 and then 06 would be stolen, I still tried my best to not engage them.

[enough already]

48. We didn't fail at anything

Rove and his nazis stole it.

[ryanmuegge]

25. Kerry did run a weak-kneed campaign, but...

New voters don't usually emerge to vote for more of the same. That's anecdotal, but logical enough to cast doubt on this claim.

[BeFree]

28. Indeed

Yet here again we see good dems casting that logic aside, and tending to believe bushco in all it's glory. Sad, isn't it?

[petepillow]

27. Looks like, sounds like, smells like, must be

a load of horseshit.

[Senator]

30. Yes, They Really Stole 6 Million - It Was for Insurance

They learned 2 things in 2000.

Have no audit trail and don't "lose" the popular vote.

That way, even if they got stopped in some of the stolen states (like Ohio, Florida, Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada) they would still be able to try to strongarm electors into switching, based on the Euphemedia calls for the "people's will" to be implemented.

They were ready for this in 2000:

RIGHT UP UNTIL Election Day, we heard over and over about the “legitimacy” questions that would arise should Al Gore win the electoral map as George Bush won the popular vote. Chris Matthews, writing contemptuously of the vice president’s political morality, noted, “Al Gore, knowing him as we do, may have no problem taking the presidential oath after losing the popular vote to George W. Bush.” The Bush camp, according reports in The New York Daily News, were busy planning to challenge such a result. “The one thing we don’t do is roll over,” one Bush aide promised, “We fight.”

The form that fight would take, he explained, would be a major public campaign about the Electoral College’s essential unfairness - a massive talk-radio operation, and lots of television advertisements. “And I think you can count on the media to fuel the thing big-time. Even papers that supported Gore might turn against him because the will of the people will have been thwarted,” he noted. Text

Had Gore and Kerry not quit, we might have seen them try this -- and fail.

Perhaps one day our side will learn a lesson. These people don't compromise, follow the law, or listen to reason.

Only Impeachment... can get through to them.

It IS our positive agenda.

It is our ONLY moral, patriotic option.

--

[BeFree]

40. I read this...

...and my heart aches. To see again how they beat us up after stealing the elections makes me ill.

And worse is how so many of us still roll over and take it again and again without so much as a whimper. But not you Senator, no sir, you have it nailed down. Thank You, Sir.

[CRH]

31. The US society as a whole ...

needs to look into the historical mirror at the actions of their government, past and present; and then perhaps ask why the 2004 election was close enough to steal, if it was indeed stolen.

The society as a whole needs to ask a very important question of its governing status quo; i.e. why a paper ballot system cannot or should not be used?

The society as a whole needs to ask of its government, what is there to fear from a transparent paper audit trail of its elections; and why is this being vigorously opposed by factions of professional corporate politicians?

Failing this, the society needs to accept that, cool-aid should be the national drink on election day, while numbly chanting, 'these machines never make a mistake when they work properly, as their self audit proves'. Pass the cool-aid please.

[BeFree]

33. Good stuff... welcome to DU

If they can put down the cool-aid for just a second, they should look at how e-voting came about. Who passed the laws?

Well, Tom Delay was the main proponent of e-voting. Now why would Tom Delay push such a system upon America? Was it because he loves democracy and wanted to see it be the best it could be?

Of course not. He wanted e-voting so that the votes could easily be stolen.

[Hippo_Tron]

44. Do new voters mean never registered before or didn't vote in 2000

The pundits' explanation is that millions evangelical Christians didn't turn out for Bush in 2000 largely because they story of his past drunk driving incidents broke before the election. In 2004 Rove pulled all of the stops to make sure that didn't happen again. There's no question that Rove did pull all of the stops in 2004.

'04 was definitely an anomaly in that an incumbent President was re-elected by the skin of his teeth supposedly because even though people weren't satisfied, they liked the other guy even worse. Perhaps it could be reflective of some new trends, though.

Either way, RFK Jr. article on the '04 election is troubling, to say the least.

[The Count]

45. And if you buy that narrative, I have a bridge to sell you.

Kerry & Edwards's fault for letting this BS spread and fester.

[Hippo_Tron]

49. I at least consider it a possibility one of my poly sci professors believes it's true

And he's not a Republican by any means.

But I'm still skeptical.

[slampoet]

50. One of these days

I'm going to sit down and list the 12-28 things you need to believe to be convinced it was fraud.


And then I'm going to list all 578 things you need to swallow if it wasn't.


It is not IF it is, just how much.

[beth9999]

51. Please....

... you can't trust the numbers. Every Repug president (except Ford, who never won a presidential election) stole his election for the last thrity years. Raygun, and the two Bushes simply lied their way into the White House by ballot-box stuffing and electoral shenanigans.