Bush has now passed 60,000,000 votes! - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Sen · 11-12-2004, 03:53 PM

Bush has now passed 60,000,000 votes as the provisional ballots continue to roll in. I'm continually astounded by how many people voted this time and even more astounded that Bush got so many votes. They were way off to suggest that high turnout would benefit Kerry.

Check here for the latest results:

http://news.yahoo.com/electionresults

Ilow · 11-12-2004, 04:09 PM

as Adam Sandler said in "The Wedding Singer" "WHOOPIDDY-DOO!!"

sprocket · 11-12-2004, 04:12 PM

Thats a lot of votes

filtherton · 11-12-2004, 04:23 PM

Did he win?

Lebell · 11-12-2004, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Did he win?

Go over to Democratic Underground and I'm sure you can find several someones who will tell you that he "stole" this election too...

filtherton · 11-12-2004, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Go over to Democratic Underground and I'm sure you can find several someones who will tell you that he "stole" this election too...

So? Bush got roughly 3.5% more of the popular vote than kerry. Go to any conservative source on the web and you'll see that this somehow amounts to near unanimity by the american voter. Embellishment knows party line.

smooth · 11-12-2004, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Go over to Democratic Underground and I'm sure you can find several someones who will tell you that he "stole" this election too...

I went over to Democratic Underground and wasn't able to find anyone asserting this.

But that was my first visit over there, maybe they were buried?

If you saw something, I'd like to see it because the only people I've seen make this claim are conservatives (as usual, making assertions about democrats that aren't panning out to be true and building hysteria on it).

hannukah harry · 11-12-2004, 05:47 PM

i'm seriously missing the big deal here... he's still got about 3.5 million more votes than kerry, which is no different than at the end of the election night. unless he were to have really pulled away in doing it, there really doesn't seem to be much reason to make a big deal out of it.

Manx · 11-12-2004, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sen

Bush has now passed 60,000,000 votes

Is that 60,000,000 with or without the phantom votes?

Connolly · 11-12-2004, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

I went over to Democratic Underground and wasn't able to find anyone asserting this.

But that was my first visit over there, maybe they were buried?

If you saw something, I'd like to see it because the only people I've seen make this claim are conservatives (as usual, making assertions about democrats that aren't panning out to be true and building hysteria on it).

You obviously weren't looking.

At all.

SecretMethod70 · 11-12-2004, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

the only people I've seen make this claim are conservatives (as usual, making assertions about democrats that aren't panning out to be true and building hysteria on it).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

Is that 60,000,000 with or without the phantom votes?

I have personally met plenty of people on my college campus who also hold the misguided belief that this election was "stolen."

MSD · 11-12-2004, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Go over to Democratic Underground and I'm sure you can find several someones who will tell you that he "stole" this election too...

http://www.democraticunderground.com...esg_id=2682466
http://www.democraticunderground.com...ress=203x45003
Too long to quote, but the links are sfw and safe for your computer (however much of the website is not safe for rational thought.)
If you want a more lighthearted bit from their site, try this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com...esg_id=2676361
A nice jab at the fact that more Yahoo News captions are incorrect than correct.

bal8664 · 11-12-2004, 07:57 PM

I may not be happy about the results, but ya know the man won fair and square. And this proves the system works, more people wanted him to be president again, and he is. At least i can be happy about that.

Aladdin Sane · 11-12-2004, 08:05 PM

Yes, as a the General Secretary of the VRWC, I admit that we stold the election. Don't ask. I will never tell you how we did it.

tellumFS · 11-12-2004, 08:37 PM

I'll second the opinion that even though I didn't like the results, atleast they were a bit less ambigous that in 2000. That would have been far, far worse.

smooth · 11-12-2004, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connolly

You obviously weren't looking.

At all.

jeez, you'd think someone would quote the piece they link to...unless, of course, it undermines their point:

(Orginal post in the thread linked)

Quote:

I just don't see any evidence popping up to support it. Even if the election was hacked, there will be little to no evidence, and if there is evidence, it will most likely lead to a patsy. Sure, some numbers look suspicious, but if you analyze the millions of figures that came out of any election, some figures are likely to look weird just by chance. And, of course nobody has any proof.

I was resting my hopes on this Jeff Fisher of Florida thing, but I read his story here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ElectionFraud2004/message...

To me, that just does not sound credible. Maybe it is, and maybe something good will come of this, but I doubt it.

On the other hand, I think a recount in Ohio might give us better chances than any fraud accusations. I think with provisional and absentee ballots, Kerry can pull close enough there to maybe win in a recount. In fact, if there is fraud, it will be exposed in the recounts. I thnk the focus should be on the computer errors now, and not on fraud, because fraud is going to be nearly impossible to prove. We already have plenty of stories about machine malfunction, and those are concrete.

I think screaming fraud severely weakens our case. If you have PROOF of fraud, show me. Otherwise demand a recount. And talk about the lack of security on the voting machines and cenreal tabulators. Talk about the long lines at minority presincts.

I know some will want to flame me for this, but there just is no evidence of fraud right now. I had to speak my mind.

It's obvious who wasn't looking "at all."

smooth · 11-12-2004, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct

http://www.democraticunderground.com...esg_id=2682466
http://www.democraticunderground.com...ress=203x45003
Too long to quote, but the links are sfw and safe for your computer (however much of the website is not safe for rational thought.)
If you want a more lighthearted bit from their site, try this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com...esg_id=2676361
A nice jab at the fact that more Yahoo News captions are incorrect than correct.

Not safe for rational thought?

Interesting...the first two links (for those who aren't going to look at them) are actually sophisticated statistical analyses of the vote data. They compare pre-vote polling, absentee ballots, election day ballots, and exit-polling data to uncover what the author believes to be inconsistencies.

Neither come remotely close to Lebell's (and Mr. SelfDestruct's) insinuation that people are irrationally claiming the president stole the election.

I recommend anyone statistically inclined or just plain curious what the argument is to actually read through the data presented and have at it. Applying intellect (from any political perspective) to data, rather than speculation, is the basis I use to judge whether something is "rational," BTW.

Rigor · 11-12-2004, 09:14 PM

just remember 9 out of 10 dead people vote democratic. 10 out of 10 terrorists vote democratic. just kidding about the last one... no, nvm i was serious.

the repubs gained in black hispanic asian wemon mens votes as well as people making over 40k a year... the dems gained in only one place... people making under 30k. sounds like they are on a roll.

smooth · 11-12-2004, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rigor

just remember 9 out of 10 dead people vote democratic. 10 out of 10 terrorists vote democratic. just kidding about the last one... no, nvm i was serious.

the repubs gained in black hispanic asian wemon mens votes as well as people making over 40k a year... the dems gained in only one place... people making under 30k. sounds like they are on a roll.

If the people the republicans picked up are anything like this post represents, I'm not too worried...

soloist124 · 11-12-2004, 09:54 PM

He has won the most votes in history.

Lebell · 11-12-2004, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

Neither come remotely close to Lebell's (and Mr. SelfDestruct's) insinuation that people are irrationally claiming the president stole the election.

I have seen sophisticated analyses of why we really didn't land on the moon, of why there had to be another shooter in Dallas that November day, of why the Government actually burned out the Branch Davidians and of why an airplane didn't really hit the Pentagon.

Show me some real proof, from a respected source, then perhaps I'll begin to listen.

Didn't we have all sorts of foreign observers watching the election?

Didn't the Democrats have a couple of thousand lawyers looking for trouble?

If Bush stole the election, why aren't saying so??

Sorry, but you'll have to do better than the crazies at DU.

smooth · 11-12-2004, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

I have seen sophisticated analyses of why we really didn't land on the moon, of why there had to be another shooter in Dallas that November day, of why the Government actually burned out the Branch Davidians and of why an airplane didn't really hit the Pentagon.

Show me some real proof, from a respected source, then perhaps I'll begin to listen.

Didn't we have all sorts of foreign observers watching the election?

Didn't the Democrats have a couple of thousand lawyers looking for trouble?

If Bush stole the election, why aren't saying so??

Sorry, but you'll have to do better than the crazies at DU.

Well, I haven't personally seen any sophisticated analyses of the phenomena you mentioned, so I can't speak to the studies you may or may not have seen.

However, I do have this analysis at hand, so perhaps you would point out the errors you detected (please apply intellect to data versus pejorative name-callining):

Quote:

Sorry for the numbers. This is a long and comprehensive report, so please stay with me -- it offers what I believe to be a strong case that election tampering took place, and I want to carefully establish the facts. I think it may be the first deep examination inside the numbers of a given state -- not just speculation -- but real data collection and questionable results put to the test.

BeFree asked me a few days ago to look over the North Carolina election returns. Things looked funny. They were way out of sync with the exit polls and no one could believe that Erskine Bowles had lost in the Senate race. The deeper I looked at the figures, the more things began to look disturbing. I downloaded the precinct data and began to pour through it for clues. Then I saw that the absentee vote (which apparently also includes the early voting data) was huge, comprising more than *a million votes* and nearly a full third of the total vote (30%). It offered the chance to compare an unadulterated voting pattern against the strange results of election day. I reasoned with an early vote that large, it is no longer a sample but a benchmark. The nearer one approaches 100%, the more accurate the picture of the whole. At one third, any inconsistencies should even out -- even if more white suburban Republicans voted by absentee (as has been charged in the past with smaller samples) or if the Democratic GOTV pushed our early numbers (as has been assumed for this election). In that respect, I was lucky to have looked at North Carolina -- it's not as crazed as the battleground states and the electorate is nicely split between parties. Any inconsistencies of one side dominating the early vote would have showed up in the data -- they didn't.

With that in mind, I began an informal review of the NC absentee vote. What I found was stunning, and I believe it should have national implications. I have little doubt that we will find the same thing elsewhere by using benchmark absentee data against election day returns. It not only reflects the pattern of exit poll discrepancy we saw throughout the country, but it also makes a compelling case for purposeful tampering with the electronic data. I also think it reveals the three objectives of the Bush re-election campaign: 1) re-election 2) mandate 3) strong Senate majority.

All of the absentee information was buried in the precinct data, hundreds of thousands of lines worth, and had to be pulled out before a comparison could be made. Before we look inside the numbers, note that of the 102 North Carolina counties, 2 have not yet posted absentee data, Catawba and Lee. It may well be in the precinct data but mislabeled or combined in some way. The NC Board of Elections said that both counties have reported, but weren't sure where it was recorded -- I'm awaiting a call back with the information. My estimate based on Catawba's demographic similarity to Davidson would shift the absentee percentages by 0.6% in the Republican's favor, so bear in mind that I've not incorporated it into the data and the consistency is going to be even better than represented. Catawba has a strong Republican base (47,923 to 33,024 registered Republicans to Democrats) and is heavily White (91,141 white to 7619 black registrants). As it is now, the absentee/early vote is almost precisely balanced statistically with the final results. Lee county is much smaller and has 16,391 Democrats to 9149 Republicans (again mostly white) -- it likely would have little impact on the percentages.

Now, here is the absentee data for all the statewide offices, followed by the overall vote, and then the poll-only results (obtained by subtracting the absentee data from the overall figures). The poll-only data is important as it gives us an isolated snapshot of the results that were returned on election day.

GOVERNOR (Absentee)
Mike Easley (DEM): 573,120 (55.6%)
Patrick J. Ballantine (REP): 445,505 (43.2%) -12.4
Other: 12,490 (1.2%)

GOVERNOR (Overall)
Mike Easley (DEM): 1,939,137 (55.6%)
Patrick J. Ballantine (REP): 1,495,032 (42.9%) -12.7
Other: 52,512 (1.5%)

GOVERNOR (Poll only)
Mike Easley (DEM): 1,366,017 (55.6%)
Patrick J. Ballantine (REP): 1,049,527 (42.7%) -12.9
Other: 40,022 (1.6%)

Already we notice that the Democrat, Easley, ran consistently at 55.6% at the polls, in the absentee, and in the poll-only vote. The Republican, Ballantine, actually did very slightly better in the absentee. But this is the overall pattern of consistency in all the statewide races (except for Senate and President which I'll hold till last). There is one other important hidden benchmark we can measure here, percentage of turnout. Perhaps the Democrats had more early/absentee voters and the Republicans had a bigger election day turnout? Well, we can figure that by dividing Easley's absentees by his overall votes (573,120 divided by 1,939,137) to find a ratio of 30% for the Democrat. And then do the same for the Republican Ballantine to also get a ratio of 30%. Both Democrats and Republicans turned out in equal numbers in early voting and at the polls. Thank you, North Carolina.

To establish the point of consistency, here are the comparisons of all the other statewide races. It's a lot of numbers, most all of them in the same percentile range, but it was important to establish that there was a clear, obvious, and unaccounted diversion from the norm in both the Senate and Presidential races, so I spent a couple of twelve hour days and went through all the statewide numbers including the amendment votes.

MAJOR RACES

*******************
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR (Absentee)
Beverly Eaves Perdue (DEM): 561,584 (55.7%)
Jim Snyder (REP): 433,112 (43.0%)
Other: 13,217 (1.3%)

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR (Overall)
Beverly Eaves Perdue (DEM): 1,888,382 (55.6%)
Jim Snyder (REP): 1,453,711 (42.8%)
Other: 56,367 (1.6%)

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR (Poll Only)
Beverly Eaves Perdue (DEM): 1,326,798 (55.5%)
Jim Snyder (REP): 1,020,599 (42.7%)
Other: 43,150 (1.8%)

*******************
SECRETARY OF STATE (Absentee)
Elaine F. Marshall (DEM): 575,045 (58.0%)
Jay Rao (REP): 416,145 (42.0%)

SECRETARY OF STATE (Overall)
Elaine F. Marshall (DEM): 1,911,570 (57.3%)
Jay Rao (REP) 1,423,115 (42.7%)

SECRETARY OF STATE (Poll Only)
Elaine F. Marshall (DEM): 1,336,525 (57.0%)
Jay Rao (REP): 1,006,970 (43.0%)

******************
ATTORNEY GENERAL (absentee)
Roy Cooper (DEM): 546,477 (56.7%)
Joe Knott (REP): 417,824 (43.3%)

ATTORNEY GENERAL (overall)
Roy Cooper (DEM): 1,869,699 (55.6%)
Joe Knott (REP): 1,493,061 (44.4%)

ATTORNEY GENERAL (poll-only)
Roy Cooper (DEM): 1,323,222 (55.2%)
Joe Knott (REP): 1,075,237 (44.8%)

******************

OTHER STATEWIDE RACES:

******************
AUDITOR (absentee)
Leslie Merritt (REP): 476,257 (48.6%)
Ralph Campbell (DEM): 503,250 (51.4%)

AUDITOR (overall)
Leslie Merritt (REP): 1,662,361 (50.4%)
Ralph Campbell (DEM): 1,633,622 (49.6%)

AUDITOR (poll-only)
Leslie Merritt (REP): 1,186,104 (51.2%)
Ralph Campbell (DEM): 1,130,372 (48.8%)

*********************
COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE (absentee)
Steve Troxler (REP): 478,794 (48.6%)
Britt Cobb (DEM): 506,613 (51.4%)

COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE (overall)
Steve Troxler (REP): 1,665,678 (50.04%)
Britt Cobb (DEM): 1,663,022 (49.96%)

COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE (poll-only)
Steve Troxler (REP): 1,186,884 (50.7%)
Britt Cobb (DEM): 1,156,409 (49.3%)

**********************
COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE (absentee)
Jim Long (DEM): 582,238 (58.4%)
C. Robert Brawley (REP): 414,204 (41.6%)

COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE (overall)
Jim Long (DEM): 1,934,061 (57.6%)
C. Robert Brawley (REP): 1,421,404 (42.4%)

COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE (poll only)
Jim Long (DEM): 1,351,823 (57.3%)
C. Robert Brawley (REP): 1,007,200 (42.7%)

**************************
COMMISSIONER OF LABOR (absentee)
Cherie Berry (REP): 475,570 (50.2%)
Wayne Goodwin (DEM): 472,632 (49.8%)

COMMISSIONER OF LABOR (overall)
Cherie Berry (REP): 1,721,841 (52.1%)
Wayne Goodwin (DEM): 1,582,253 (47.9%)

COMMISSIONER OF LABOR (poll only)
Cherie Berry (REP): 1,246,271 (52.9%)
Wayne Goodwin (DEM): 1,109,621 (47.1%)

***********************
SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION (absentee)
June S. Atkinson (DEM): 507,523 (51.7%)
Bill Fletcher (REP): 473,991 (48.3%)

SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION (overall)
June S. Atkinson (DEM): 1,656,092 (50.1%)
Bill Fletcher (REP): 1,646,838 (49.9%)

SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION (poll only)
June S. Atkinson (DEM): 1,148,569 (49.5%)
Bill Fletcher (REP): 1,172,847 (50.5%)

**************************
TREASURER (absentee)
Richard H. Moore (DEM): 546,160 (55.3%)
Edward A. Meyer (REP): 440,871 (44.7%)

TREASURER (overall)
Richard H. Moore (DEM): 1,812,182 (54.5%)
Edward A. Meyer (REP): 1,512,628 (45.5%)

TREASURER (poll only)
Richard H. Moore (DEM): 1,266,022 (54.2%)
Edward A. Meyer (REP): 1,071,757 (45.8%)

*******************************
NC Constitutional Amendment 1 (absentee)
FOR: 432,697 (51.7%)
AGAINST: 403,475 (48.3%)

NC Constitutional Amendment 1 (overall)
FOR: 1,494,789 (51.2%)
AGAINST: 1,423,195 (48.8%)

NC Constitutional Amendment 1 (poll only)
FOR: 1,062,092 (51.0%)
AGAINST: 1,019,720 (49.0%)

****************************
NC Constitutional Amendment 2 (absentee)
FOR: 679,434 (78.6%)
AGAINST: 185,101 (21.4%)

NC Constitutional Amendment 2 (overall)
FOR: 2,334,683 (78.0%)
AGAINST: 659,532 (22.0%)

NC Constitutional Amendment 2 (poll only)
FOR: 1,655,249 (77.7%)
AGAINST: 474,431 (22.3%)

****************************
NC Constitutional Amendment 3 (absentee)
FOR: 591,122 (68.7%)
AGAINST: 269,641 (31.3%)

NC Constitutional Amendment 3 (overall)
FOR: 1,984,151 (68.0%)
AGAINST: 933,021 (32.0%)

NC Constitutional Amendment 3 (poll only)
FOR: 1,393,029 (67.7%)
AGAINST: 663,380 (32.3%)

****************************

Of all the statewide races, the only other votes that may raise red flags are the Labor and Agriculture Commissioners, though likely the Catawba data will pull them into line. But none of the races showed anywhere near the unexplained swing of the Senate race.

*************************
SENATOR (absentee)
Richard Burr (REP): 492,166 49.48%
Erskine Bowles (DEM): 492,536 49.52% .04
Other: 9,917 1%

SENATOR (overall)
Richard Burr (REP): 1,791,460 51.6%
Erskine Bowles (DEM): 1,632,509 47.0% -4.6
Other: 48,103 1.4%

SENATOR (poll only)
Richard Burr (REP): 1,299,294 52.4%
Erskine Bowles (DEM): 1,139,973 46.0% -6.4
Others: 38,186 1.5%

*************************

WOW. With essentially the same vote demographics in the absentee and the poll, there was a sudden shift of 6.4% of the vote toward the Republican. That's more than a little alarming and is in itself enough to call into question the legitimacy of the election day vote. North Carolinians in this forum can speak to this, but Bowles is generally well liked. There is absolutely nothing to account for the bizarre drop of support in the electorate by 6.4% between the early voting (mostly the week prior) and election day. But when we compare it to the Presidential race, it is dwarfed by absurdity.

*************************
PRESIDENT (absentee)
George W. Bush: 529,755 52.9%
John F. Kerry: 469,522 46.9% -6.0
Others: 2749 0.2%

PRESIDENT (overall)
George W. Bush: 1,961,188 56.0%
John F. Kerry: 1,525,821 43.6% -12.4
Others: 13,989 0.4%

PRESIDENT (poll only)
George W. Bush: 1,431,433 57.3%
John F. Kerry: 1,056,299 42.3% -15.0
Others: 11,240 0.4%

**************************

So what the heck is going on here??? Kerry was behind by 6 points in the absentee/early voting. The result is consistent with the pre-election polls and most importantly with the exit polls of November 2nd. THE EXIT POLLS TELL US THAT PEOPLE VOTED IDENTICALLY TO THE OTHER THIRD OF THE ELECTORATE. By all standards of reason, the other two-thirds of the vote should be very close to the same result. But look at what happens -- a sudden and unexplained plummet in the very same electorate of NINE POINTS at the election day polls, more than doubling Kerry's overall margin of defeat. A 15 point edge for Bush in North Carolina on election day??? Come on -- I'm not that gullible. I honestly don't know how to account for that outside of computer programming -- and if it's there, there's a damn good case with the nationwide inconsistencies between exit polls and results on election day to say that it follows everywhere electronic tabulation goes. My gut tells me that this is why there is a reluctance in Florida and Ohio to push the absentee counting and that the ballots and counts had best be watched very damn closely. They present a paper trail challenge that if understood will provide a key benchmark for election day fraud. I also want to point out that the differential was not there prior to election day -- meaning there either had to be a *date specific* alteration in the software, a hack, or a specific activation just prior to the election. And lastly, it is not only the Presidential election day vote that is spurious -- the close Senate races also bear close scrutiny.

Kalibah · 11-12-2004, 10:42 PM

Silly Democrats

Its a mandate because he has the House, the Senate AND presidency. Thats what its a mandate - And while no post specifically brought this up- the embellishment" got me thinkin - how is it not clear?

Its one of the few times a party has controleld the House, Senate and WhiteHouse all at once- atleast as far back as I can AND care to remember.

Lebell · 11-12-2004, 10:45 PM

Sure thing.

It starts with, "BeFree asked me a few days ago to look over the North Carolina election returns."

Who is this person? Who is BeFree? What proof do we have that his numbers are right? Where are his references? Why did he choose to post them on DU? Has he reported them to someone else?

And from there we go to speculation that because some polls and other races were out of sync with the final product that there MUST be fraud.

Again, show me proof, with a trail that can be audited, not speculation and innuendo.

Lebell · 11-12-2004, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Sure thing.

It starts with, "BeFree asked me a few days ago to look over the North Carolina election returns."

Who is this person? Who is BeFree? What proof do we have that his numbers are right? Where are his references? Why did he choose to post them on DU? Has he reported them to someone else?

And from there we go to speculation that because some polls and other races were out of sync with the final product that there MUST be fraud.

Again, show me proof, with a trail that can be audited, not speculation and innuendo.

As an aside, my old home state, Colorado, up until Bill Owens, regularly elected a Democratic governer and a Republican Legistlature. They also elected a Democrat (Ken Salazar) to take the place of a the retiring Republican Senator, Ben Nighthorse Campbell.

Fishy, isn't it?

smooth · 11-12-2004, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Sure thing.

It starts with, "BeFree asked me a few days ago to look over the North Carolina election returns."

Who is this person? Who is BeFree? What proof do we have that his numbers are right? Where are his references? Why did he choose to post them on DU? Has he reported them to someone else?

And from there we go to speculation that because some polls and other races were out of sync with the final product that there MUST be fraud.

Again, show me proof, with a trail that can be audited, not speculation and innuendo.

OK, so you went from the introduction to the conclusion, skipping all the numbers in between, and called it (un)good?

You have issues.

I can't answer all the questions you posed, but the only one I think relevant to the analysis is whether the numbers are correct.

Since they are available in the public domain, it seems to be a question of willingness to conduct research versus calling someone crazy, & etc. I find it more likely that you don't want to consider the data, aren't well versed in statistical analysis, and feel justified in concluding the source isn't worthy of consideration in order to ignore the statistical results he came up with rather than disputing them with numbers.

Whether the evidence provided speaks to fraud, I'm not drawing conclusions myself. But that doesn't prevent me from engaging with the data myself and wondering where the anomalies are coming from (or considering that the data presented even indicate anomalies occurred).

I'm not a member of DU, nor had I been there before you mentioned it. But presumably you have an account there (or lurk there for whatever reasons), so why not ask all those questions you find so damning to the poster himself?

Edit: Lebell, I also would like to point out that the author is in no way stating that the presidential election would have been reversed in this case. He points out that Bush won, but by a larger margin than the data suggests should have occurred. He does seem to question the Senate race, however, but his main thrust, at least according to my reading of it, is to demonstrate statistically that errors occurred via the electronic voting machines.

smooth · 11-12-2004, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

As an aside, my old home state, Colorado, up until Bill Owens, regularly elected a Democratic governer and a Republican Legistlature. They also elected a Democrat (Ken Salazar) to take the place of a the retiring Republican Senator, Ben Nighthorse Campbell.

Fishy, isn't it?

I don't know, show me the numbers.

Then we can go through them and see if anything appears to be remiss.

Manx · 11-12-2004, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Sure thing.

It starts with, "BeFree asked me a few days ago to look over the North Carolina election returns."

Who is this person? Who is BeFree? What proof do we have that his numbers are right? Where are his references? Why did he choose to post them on DU? Has he reported them to someone else?

That is a classic ad hominem. If you have evidence to demonstrate that the information being presented is incorrect, you should convey it instead of simply implying it. If you do not have evidence that the information is incorrect, you should argue the information and not who or why the information is being presented.

Quote:

And from there we go to speculation that because some polls and other races were out of sync with the final product that there MUST be fraud.

The article does not claim it "must" be fraud. It states the information presented is a "strong case". There is a clear difference.

I would hardly consider that article to be written by a "crazy".

Lebell · 11-12-2004, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

That is a classic ad hominem. If you have evidence to demonstrate that the information being presented is incorrect, you should convey it instead of simply implying it. If you do not have evidence that the information is incorrect, you should argue the information and not who or why the information is being presented.

The article does not claim it "must" be fraud. It states the information presented is a "strong case". There is a clear difference.

I would hardly consider that article to be written by a "crazy".

Nonsense and nonsense.

It is more than reasonable to ask who this person is and what their relationship is to the issue.

And the burden of proof is NOT on me, it is on him to prove his allegations, which he does not do. He instead presents numbers and draws his own conclusion that something is fishy.

And if you don't think DU is inhabited by the loony fringe of the Democrats*, then you haven't read enough posts there.

Heck, it embarasses them sometimes.

*Fully conceded that Dems are not as a rule "loony" and that there are "loony" Repubs as well as Libertarians, etc.

smooth · 11-13-2004, 12:01 AM

Look, Lebell, I'm not trying to go rounds with numbers this or numbers that, yada, yada, etc.

My concern is allowing private corporations to control the source code of electronic voting machines without a paper trail. Paper trail or not, the source needs to be open and secure (under the hood and physically).

I certainly hope we agree that it doesn't make sense to have private corporations to control our public election results--regardless of which party makes the machines or has a vested interest in the outcome.

That's what I think this article is trying to articulate. I find evidence in the fact that the author doesn't dispute the overall results of the election--that Bush won.

joeshoe · 11-13-2004, 12:02 AM

Bush got a clear majority. I'm somewhat surprised.

Manx · 11-13-2004, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Nonsense and nonsense.

Again you lack an argument.

SecretMethod70 · 11-13-2004, 02:49 AM

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar..._is_dismissed/

Quote:

Internet buzz on vote fraud is dismissed
By Rick Klein, Globe Staff | November 10, 2004

WASHINGTON -- As they ricochet around the country on the Internet, the details seem aligned to raise the eyebrows of suspicious Democrats.

President Bush recorded 4,258 votes to Senator John F. Kerry's 260 in one suburb of Columbus, Ohio -- where only 638 ballots were cast. Across Ohio, some 76,000 punch-card ballots did not register votes for president, and officials have only begun to comb through 155,428 provisional ballots.

In Holmes County, Florida, though nearly three-quarters of registered voters are Democrats, Bush wiped out Kerry, 6,410 to 1,810, in results that mirrored those in several other counties where optical-scan paper ballots were used. And in Florida's Broward County, after the first 32,000 absentee ballots were fed into the computer system, a software glitch caused additional ballots to be subtracted from vote totals, rather than added.

A week after Kerry conceded and Bush declared victory, those assertions and scores of others from New Mexico to North Carolina have kept alive fierce speculation that Bush's victory either wasn't real or wasn't as decisive as it seemed. With memories fresh from the 2000 irregularities, e-mails and Web postings accuse Republicans of stealing an election.

Much of the traffic is little more than Internet-fueled conspiracy theories, and none of the vote-counting problems and anomalies that have emerged are sufficiently widespread to have affected the election's ultimate result.

Kerry campaign officials and a range of election-law specialists agree that while machines made errors and long lines in Democratic precincts kept many voters away, there's no realistic chance that Kerry actually beat Bush.

''No one would be more interested than me in finding out that we really won, but that ain't the case," said Jack Corrigan, a veteran Kerry adviser who led the Democrats' team of 3,600 attorneys who fanned out across the country on Election Day to address voting irregularities.

''I get why people are frustrated, but they did not steal this election," Corrigan said. ''There were a few problems here and there in the election. But unlike 2000, there is no doubt that they actually got more votes than we did, and they got them in the states that mattered."

Still, with reports swirling on the Internet, six Democratic members of Congress have asked the Government Accountability Office to investigate. Leading academics have joined the fray as well, saying that the integrity and future of the nation's voting system demand a vetting of all claims.

''The kind of thing that has to happen is a full-scale investigation," said Troy Duster, a New York University professor who is president of the American Sociological Association. ''It sounds like a paranoid fantasy, but I think the data suggests that even if Bush won, he didn't win by the kind of margins that are out there. We have a crisis here of potential legitimacy with all the stuff going on on the Web, and the way to deal with this is to do the research."

Most of the focus has been on results in Ohio and Florida, since if either of those states had gone for Kerry instead of Bush, the Massachusetts senator would be president-elect. Early exit polls in both states indicated that Kerry was track to win, and in each state voting and counting irregularities in numerous places have been reported. ''Fraud took place in the 2004 election," declares the team at BlackBoxVoting.org, one popular website that is compiling reports of election problems.

''Kerry won. Here are the facts," reads the headline on a widely circulated article written by the author of a scathing book on the Bush family.

Another site suggests Kerry is refusing to contest the election because fellow members of the Yale secret society Skull and Bones forbade him to do so.

After one e-mailer erroneously suggested that Kerry's brother, Cameron, was compiling reports of voting problems, Cameron Kerry's e-mail inbox was inundated with hundreds of messages, received at the pace of several per minute through yesterday. He sent out a stock response saying ''we are not ignoring" the reports, asking that they be forwarded to the Democratic National Committee instead of his e-mail address at his Boston law firm.

Though Corrigan said all allegations will be investigated by the Democratic legal team, he added that it has become clear that 2004 was no repeat of 2000. That year, an abbreviated Florida recount resulted in a 537-vote margin of victory for Bush, and many Democrats believe a full and impartial recount would have handed the election to Democrat Al Gore.

This year, the race wasn't nearly as close in the states that hung in the balance. According to preliminary results from last week's election, Bush carried Florida by 380,000 votes, and Ohio by 136,000. Corrigan said Democrats won't push for hand recounts this year, because they wouldn't change the results, a point backed by election specialists.

''I think it's safe to say that on the votes that were cast in Ohio, Bush won," said Dan Tokaji, a law professor at Ohio State University who is working with the ACLU to challenge Ohio's use of punch-card ballots. ''If the margin had been 36,000 rather than 136,000, we would have seen another post-election meltdown."

The apparent computer glitch that awarded Bush an extra 3,893 votes in Gahanna, Ohio, was quickly caught and won't be in the final certified numbers. The 76,000 punch cards across the state where no vote for president was recorded include ballots cast by people who chose not to vote for the top office, as well as those who mistakenly chose more than one candidate. That group, of course, includes voters who intended to support Bush as well as those who meant to support Kerry.

As a percentage of the total, the number of ballots recording no vote for president was actually lower than it's been in recent elections in the state, Corrigan noted. Democrats are making sure provisional ballots are counted, but almost all of those votes would have to be for Kerry to swing the election, and many are expected to be ruled invalid.

In Florida, the Democratic-leaning counties that went for Bush are in the culturally conservative Panhandle, where the president beat Gore in 2000 and where he made particularly intense appeals this year. The software error that started subtracting votes rather than adding them affected only a few ballot measures, and was caught and corrected.

Richard Hasen, an election law specialist at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, noted that with the election overseen by 13,000 different local jurisdictions -- many of which were employing new technologies on Election Day -- scattered problems were inevitable.

''I would be surprised if there wouldn't be glitches like this," Hasen said.

As for the exit polls, they remain subject to sampling errors and limitations in data gathering. The polls sponsored by a consortium of media companies had margins of error of roughly 3 percent, and in closely contested states shown to be leaning toward Kerry, narrow Bush wins were actually within the expected range. Florida's margin was larger than expected, but poll takers reported problems getting close enough to voting places to collect adequate samples, and said they feared they were not getting Bush voters to be as forthcoming with their choice as Kerry voters.

Heather Gerken, a professor at Harvard Law School, said the fact that this year's election went smoothly compared to 2000 shouldn't blind policy makers to problems still inherent in the system. Many jurisdictions continue to use outdated equipment, states are behind in compiling reliable voter lists, and elections are still run by partisan officials, she said.

''I have not yet seen anything that convinces me that the election was stolen, but I certainly think that we should treat these allegations seriously and do them justice," she said. ''There's clearly problems with the elections system. It's crucial to the health of this country that we have an election system that we can trust."

onetime2 · 11-13-2004, 08:46 AM

Hey SecretMethod, aren't you supposed to add some of your thoughts to that post?

Lebell · 11-13-2004, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

Look, Lebell, I'm not trying to go rounds with numbers this or numbers that, yada, yada, etc.

My concern is allowing private corporations to control the source code of electronic voting machines without a paper trail. Paper trail or not, the source needs to be open and secure (under the hood and physically).

I certainly hope we agree that it doesn't make sense to have private corporations to control our public election results--regardless of which party makes the machines or has a vested interest in the outcome.

That's what I think this article is trying to articulate. I find evidence in the fact that the author doesn't dispute the overall results of the election--that Bush won.

As a former auditor, I completely agree that the system needs to be fully transparent and that an audit trail needs to be present.

Edit to add:

But Smooth, my statement was that that people over at DU are arguing for fraud and your reply was that you didn't see such arguments. As an example, you pulled ONE post.

First, it seems clear to me what the author is trying to say; that the numbers are inconsistant and indicate fraud. You say different. So be it.

But as for DU'ers NOT alleging fraud, I point out these threads:

http://www.democraticunderground.com...esg_id=1349610

http://www.democraticunderground.com...ss=132x1351409

http://www.democraticunderground.com...ss=132x1351218

http://www.democraticunderground.com...ss=132x1343460 (buried as responses)

http://www.democraticunderground.com...ss=132x1346797

http://www.democraticunderground.com...ss=132x1349377

http://www.democraticunderground.com...ss=132x1349803

http://www.democraticunderground.com...ss=132x1350646

http://www.democraticunderground.com...topic_id=1984#

http://www.democraticunderground.com...ss=132x1350563

And on and on...

What I can't figure out is why didn't you see these. They are all on the first few pages. Did you even look?

Lebell · 11-13-2004, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

Again you lack an argument.

Not when you quote my entire post and not just the first three words.

Ilow · 11-13-2004, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kalibah

Silly Democrats

Its a mandate because he has the House, the Senate AND presidency. Thats what its a mandate - And while no post specifically brought this up- the embellishment" got me thinkin - how is it not clear?

Its one of the few times a party has controleld the House, Senate and WhiteHouse all at once- atleast as far back as I can AND care to remember.

Apart form the fact that most of your post is barely in English, you're entirely wrong. A mandate is simply the authorization to carry out a program or policy given by the electorate to its representative to carry out, nothing more. Every president has a mandate technically. It has absolutely nothing to do with uniting the Congress and the Presidency under one party. Silly Republican.

smooth · 11-13-2004, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

But Smooth, my statement was that that people over at DU are arguing for fraud and your reply was that you didn't see such arguments. As an example, you pulled ONE post.

First, it seems clear to me what the author is trying to say; that the numbers are inconsistant and indicate fraud. You say different. So be it.

What I can't figure out is why didn't you see these. They are all on the first few pages. Did you even look?

You argued that democrats were claiming the election was stolen (again). I didn't pull that article, Mr.SelfDestruct posted it--I just pasted the text of the link he provided (it's a few posts above mine). I agree that the author says his research indicates fraud--but that isn't the same as claiming the election was stolen, especially when the researcher allows that the data for Bush is still that he won the election albeit by a smaller margin.

Yes, I did look. I don't know the site, didn't care that much, don't have any particular reason to defend democrats (especially those part of a self-identified underground group), and didn't spend much time searching around. That's why I asked you to post the ones you were talking about.

Of course, I did check your first two links and the first one doesn't say anything about fraud in the opening post and the second one is a compilation of other sites alleging fraud. You are exasperating. Why do you bother reading a site so opposed to your beliefs--is it so you can feel justified in thinking democrats are loony?

fuzyfuzer · 11-13-2004, 01:22 PM

i don't understandy why we are waisting our time talking about exit polling, it isn't standardized and means absolutly nothing. the only way i think it could have any bearing is if every person was asked the question at every place. what does that sound like, it sounds like the ballots maybe they can tell us who really won.

shakran · 11-13-2004, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

I have personally met plenty of people on my college campus who also hold the misguided belief that this election was "stolen."

The problem is that we do not know if this election was stolen or not, and we can't ever know unless someone came forward and confessed that they helped steal it. It'd be the same thing if Kerry had won too - - with 30+ states using computerized voting that leaves NO paper trail and therefore NO way to check and see if the votes they recorded are actually the votes that were cast, it is NOT possible to know what really happened on November 2.

11-12-2004, 03:53 PM	#1 (permalink)
Sen Insane Location: Midwest	Bush has now passed 60,000,000 votes! Bush has now passed 60,000,000 votes as the provisional ballots continue to roll in. I'm continually astounded by how many people voted this time and even more astounded that Bush got so many votes. They were way off to suggest that high turnout would benefit Kerry. Check here for the latest results: http://news.yahoo.com/electionresults __________________ "I want to announce my presence with authority!" "You want to what?" "I want to announce my presence with authority!!"

11-12-2004, 04:09 PM	#2 (permalink)
Ilow Junkie Location: Pats country	as Adam Sandler said in "The Wedding Singer" "WHOOPIDDY-DOO!!" __________________ "Religion is the one area of our discourse in which it is considered noble to pretend to be certain about things no human being could possibly be certain about" --Sam Harris Last edited by Ilow; 11-12-2004 at 04:11 PM..

11-12-2004, 04:12 PM	#3 (permalink)
sprocket Psycho Location: In transit	Thats a lot of votes __________________ Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

11-12-2004, 05:47 PM	#8 (permalink)
hannukah harry Junkie	i'm seriously missing the big deal here... he's still got about 3.5 million more votes than kerry, which is no different than at the end of the election night. unless he were to have really pulled away in doing it, there really doesn't seem to be much reason to make a big deal out of it. __________________ shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

11-12-2004, 08:05 PM	#14 (permalink)
Aladdin Sane Degenerate Location: San Marvelous	Yes, as a the General Secretary of the VRWC, I admit that we stold the election. Don't ask. I will never tell you how we did it. __________________ Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

11-12-2004, 04:23 PM	#4 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Did he win?

11-12-2004, 07:57 PM	#13 (permalink)
bal8664 Crazy Location: Rochester, NY	I may not be happy about the results, but ya know the man won fair and square. And this proves the system works, more people wanted him to be president again, and he is. At least i can be happy about that.

11-12-2004, 08:37 PM	#15 (permalink)
tellumFS Tilted	I'll second the opinion that even though I didn't like the results, atleast they were a bit less ambigous that in 2000. That would have been far, far worse.

11-12-2004, 09:14 PM	#18 (permalink)
Rigor Upright	just remember 9 out of 10 dead people vote democratic. 10 out of 10 terrorists vote democratic. just kidding about the last one... no, nvm i was serious. the repubs gained in black hispanic asian wemon mens votes as well as people making over 40k a year... the dems gained in only one place... people making under 30k. sounds like they are on a roll.

11-12-2004, 09:54 PM	#20 (permalink)
soloist124 Crazy	He has won the most votes in history.

11-12-2004, 10:42 PM	#23 (permalink)
Kalibah Insane Location: Padded Playhouse	Silly Democrats Its a mandate because he has the House, the Senate AND presidency. Thats what its a mandate - And while no post specifically brought this up- the embellishment" got me thinkin - how is it not clear? Its one of the few times a party has controleld the House, Senate and WhiteHouse all at once- atleast as far back as I can AND care to remember.

11-12-2004, 10:45 PM	#24 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Sure thing. It starts with, "BeFree asked me a few days ago to look over the North Carolina election returns." Who is this person? Who is BeFree? What proof do we have that his numbers are right? Where are his references? Why did he choose to post them on DU? Has he reported them to someone else? And from there we go to speculation that because some polls and other races were out of sync with the final product that there MUST be fraud. Again, show me proof, with a trail that can be audited, not speculation and innuendo. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

11-13-2004, 12:01 AM	#30 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	Look, Lebell, I'm not trying to go rounds with numbers this or numbers that, yada, yada, etc. My concern is allowing private corporations to control the source code of electronic voting machines without a paper trail. Paper trail or not, the source needs to be open and secure (under the hood and physically). I certainly hope we agree that it doesn't make sense to have private corporations to control our public election results--regardless of which party makes the machines or has a vested interest in the outcome. That's what I think this article is trying to articulate. I find evidence in the fact that the author doesn't dispute the overall results of the election--that Bush won. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

11-13-2004, 12:02 AM	#31 (permalink)
joeshoe Crazy Location: California	Bush got a clear majority. I'm somewhat surprised.

11-13-2004, 08:46 AM	#34 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	Hey SecretMethod, aren't you supposed to add some of your thoughts to that post? __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

11-13-2004, 01:22 PM	#39 (permalink)
fuzyfuzer Insane Location: st. louis	i don't understandy why we are waisting our time talking about exit polling, it isn't standardized and means absolutly nothing. the only way i think it could have any bearing is if every person was asked the question at every place. what does that sound like, it sounds like the ballots maybe they can tell us who really won. __________________ "The difference between commiment and involvment is like a ham and egg breakfast the chicken was involved but the pig was commited" "Thrice happy is the nation that has a glorious history. Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat." Theodore Roosevelt