Quote:
|
Because the only people who could possibly vote for Bush are racist homophobes?
|
No, because the least likely people to vote for a gay-friendly black woman for judge are rural republicans. The point about the votes cast for the judge is that you would expect her votes and Kerry's to be similar in proportion across the state. For her to gain ground so spectacularly in areas where people traditionally don't vote for policies similar to hers should raise suspicions.
So you still want to knock the article because of the 98 and 7% thing. You're happy to dodge the judge issue, ignore the exit polls issue (as the article says, exit poll/vote discrepancies expose fraud in places like Ukraine, so why in the US do people assume the poll is wrong?), ignore the skewed voting machine distribution and then not show any evidence for your assertion that 7% turnout might be common, despite wanting more evidence for the facts in this citation-heavily article. Bush must love you!
People intimidated while trying to vote:
http://www.metroblogging.com/videoth...timidation.mp4
There's plenty more out there. For example, Keith Olbermann did a piece about how some Florida counties with large proportions of voters registered as Democrats turned out for Bush, but only in areas where the count was done by electronic counting machines (and nowhere else). This has been disputed because apparently
the people there register at birth and never change, even if their politics do, but I don't know why there should be a correlation with the method of counting in use!?!
Thefreespeechzone has a summary of the piece (search for "
Keith Oberman takes a stand" - their spelling!), and
a link to some turnouts with truly are impossible.