As Fast as Blogs See Vote Fraud, Web Is Proving Rumors Wrong -NYT

The e-mail messages and Web postings had all the twitchy cloak-and-dagger thrust of a Hollywood blockbuster. "Evidence mounts that the vote may have been hacked," trumpeted a headline on the Web site CommonDreams.org. "Fraud took place in the 2004 election through electronic voting machines," declared BlackBoxVoting.org.

In the space of seven days, an online market of dark ideas surrounding last week's presidential election took root and multiplied.

But while the widely read universe of Web logs was often blamed for the swift propagation of faulty analyses, the blogosphere, as it has come to be known, also accelerated the resolution of questions that, in an earlier age, might have lingered and fed conspiracy theories for years. Within days of the first rumors of a stolen election, in fact, the most popular theories were being proved wrong - though many were still reluctant to let them go.

Much of the controversy, called Votergate 2004 by some, involved very real voting anomalies in Florida and Ohio, the two states on which victory hinged. But ground zero in the online rumor mill, it seems, was Utah. "I love the process of democracy, and I think it's more important than the outcome," said Kathy Dopp, an Internet enthusiast living near Salt Lake City. It was Ms. Dopp's analysis of the vote in Florida (she has a master's degree in mathematics) that set off a flurry of post-election theorizing by disheartened Democrats who were certain, given early surveys of voters leaving the polls that were leaked, showing Senator John Kerry winning handily, that something was amiss.

http://nytimes.com/2004/11/12/politics/12theory.html?hp&ex=1100235600&en=83d4630220167002&ei=5094&partner=homepage

and Electronic Voting No Paper trail A problem for Bush :bounce:

We're gonna be a bigger problem than they even conceived of.

the election!!! I guess that is the classic Republican spin on all of it now...Bloggers watch out! The Repukes have their eyes on you!!

Tom Zeller, Jr. It looks like he's been preparing for this article since before the election:


WASHINGTON | November 12, 2004
Vote Fraud Theories, Spread by Blogs, Are Quickly Buried
By TOM ZELLER Jr. (NYT) News


WASHINGTON | November 12, 2004
Mostly Good Reviews for Electronic Voting
By JOHN SCHWARTZ (NYT) News



CORRECTIONS | November 12, 2004
Mostly Good Reviews for Electronic Voting
By JOHN SCHWARTZ (NYT) News



WEEK IN REVIEW | November 7, 2004
Blue States Looking North?
By TOM ZELLER Jr. (NYT) News



NATIONAL DESK | November 3, 2004, Wednesday $
THE 2004 ELECTIONS: THE VOTERS -- THE BALLOTING; Voters Find Long Lines and Short Tempers, but Little Chaos at Polls
By ROBERT D. McFADDEN; Reporting for this article was contributed by Rick Lyman in Milwaukee; Diane Cardwell in St. Louis; Ralph Blumenthal and Katie Reckdahl in New Orleans; Abby Goodnough in Miami; (NYT) 2084 words



NATIONAL DESK | November 3, 2004, Wednesday $
THE 2004 ELECTIONS: THE VOTERS -- THE SWING STATES; In Crunch Time, Racing Door to Door
By RICK LYMAN; Reporting for this article was contributed by Stephen Kinzer in St. Paul; Tom Zeller Jr. in Albuquerque; Michael Moss in Des Moines; Pam Belluck in Derry, N.H.; and Ford Fessenden in Cl (NYT) 1404 words



NATIONAL DESK | November 2, 2004, Tuesday $
THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: LAST-MINUTE EFFORTS; Record Turnout Forecast; Vote Drives Intensify
By ROBERT D. McFADDEN; Reporting for this article was contributed by Pam Belluck from Manchester, N.H.; Ford Fessenden from Cleveland; Stephen Kinzer from Minneapolis; Rick Lyman from Milwaukee; Nick (NYT) 1281 words



BUSINESS/FINANCIAL DESK | November 1, 2004, Monday $
The TV That Sent Out a Cry for Help, via Satellite
By TOM ZELLER Jr. (NYT) 1462 words



NATIONAL DESK | November 1, 2004, Monday $
THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: PULPITS; On the Final Sunday, Sermons Pulse With the Power of Spiritual Suggestion
By ROBERT D. McFADDEN; Reporting for this article was contributed by Diane Cardwell from Little Rock, Ark.; Ford Fessenden from Cleveland; John Holl from New Jersey; Johanna Jainchill from New York; K (NYT) 1563 words



NATIONAL DESK | October 31, 2004, Sunday $
THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: BATTLEGROUNDS; New Mexico
By TOM ZELLER (NYT) 485 words



BUSINESS/FINANCIAL DESK | October 25, 2004, Monday $
MOST WANTED: DRILLING DOWN/ELECTRONIC VOTING; A Preference for Paper
By TOM ZELLER Jr. (NYT) 255 words



METROPOLITAN DESK | October 19, 2004, Tuesday $
Lawsuit Seeks To Challenge Electronic Vote In New Jersey
By TOM ZELLER Jr. (NYT) 1019 words



BUSINESS/FINANCIAL DESK | October 18, 2004, Monday $
New Economy; Internet advertisers face a new enemy: people who click on ads with no intention of buying.
By Tom Zeller Jr. (NYT) 1097 words



BUSINESS/FINANCIAL DESK | October 14, 2004, Thursday $
Identity Chip Planted Under Skin Approved for Use in Health Care
By BARNABY J. FEDER and TOM ZELLER Jr. (NYT) 1411 words



BUSINESS/FINANCIAL DESK | October 13, 2004, Wednesday $
TECHNOLOGY; F.T.C. Files First Lawsuit Against Spyware Concerns
By TOM ZELLER Jr. (NYT) 850 words



NATIONAL DESK | October 13, 2004, Wednesday $
THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: PENNSYLVANIA; One Vote, but Five Ways to Cast It
By TOM ZELLER Jr. (NYT) 1439 words



BUSINESS/FINANCIAL DESK | October 12, 2004, Tuesday $
Entertainment Industry Asks Justices to Rule on File Sharing
By TOM ZELLER Jr. (NYT) 596 words



BUSINESS/FINANCIAL DESK | September 30, 2004, Thursday $
TECHNOLOGY; Senate Bill Aims at Makers of File-Sharing Software
By TOM ZELLER Jr. (NYT) 1592 words



BUSINESS/FINANCIAL DESK | September 27, 2004, Monday $
MediaTalk; If Hockey Is Out, Best Thing on Ice May Very Well Be A Computer Game
By TOM ZELLER (NYT) 432 words
About: SWEAT (TV PROGRAM)


WEEK IN REVIEW DESK | September 26, 2004, Sunday $
The Nation; Why We Fear The Digital Ballot
By TOM ZELLER Jr. (NYT) 907 words

Just pumping out numbers and stories like a robot. It isn't real people coming up with this evidence.

We need to nip this "the nutty internet people are going crazy about ufos again" meme, and quick.

snip>
For its part, the Kerry campaign has been trying to tamp down the conspiracy theories and to tell supporters that their mission now is to ensure that every vote is counted, not that the election be overturned.

"We know this was an emotional election, and the losing side is very upset," said Daniel Hoffheimer, the lead lawyer for the Kerry campaign in Ohio. But, he said, "I have not seen anything to indicate intentional fraud or tampering."

A preliminary study produced by the Voting Technology Project, a cooperative effort between the California Institute of Technology and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, came to a similar conclusion. Its study found "no particular patterns" relating to voting systems and the final results of the election.

If they show their hand and publicly claim fraud or tampering before they have concrete evidence, they'll be discredited right out of the gate.

Let them keep digging. They know what they're looking for. If fraud happened (and I believe it did), I trust they'll find it.

a hell of a lot better than those 'journalists.'

As someone else said on DU yesterday,

"we ARE the media." :) :bounce:

Dems think too much, and that is our downfall. Those who think often already voted for Kerry. The other half likes their messages to be able to fit on a bumper sticker. "Flip-flopper", "Fuzzy Math", #1 Liberal", "You can run, but you can't hide". Then DEMs explain their position and no one listens. We need to stick to talking points. Such as "Conflict of interest", "Voter FRAUD", "Extra votes for Bush", and ironically, "fuzzy math".

As far as intellectual arguments, let the lawyers do that. I have been a regular on blackboxvoting for a long time and am very familiar with Bev Harris and her work. Bev and her friends are far, far removed from "conspiracy nuts" and have more evidence than quite frankly anyone knows.

We are biding time. Saving our ammo. Shooting one bullet at a time as their defenses run out. Then we march and protest. The media will have to report and right now as I write this battles are being fought. The talking points are bubbling to the surface in local media throughout the country. Lawyers are preparing cases. Recounts are being requested. Understand, there are hundreds of irregularities that have been found at this point. Recorded testimony from Diebold workers. Copies of memos and documents. The truth will come out. Believe it.

BOO HOO!!!! And BOO to you.... be scared. The American population is growing tired of your lies.

and now go read this times story on the wacky internet
...........

The Internet is the most enabling mechanism for free speech ever known to mankind.

There is plenty of irrefutable proof and even more circumstantial evidence.

"To believe that Bush won the election, you must also believe: That the exit polls were wrong; that Zogby's 5pm election day calls for Kerry winning Ohio and Florida were wrong (he was exactly right in his 2000 final poll); that Harris' last-minute polling for Kerry was wrong (he was exactly right in his 2000 final poll); that incumbent rule #1 – undecideds break for the challenger - was wrong; That the 50% rule – an incumbent doesn't do better than his final polling - was wrong; That the approval rating rule – an incumbent with less than 50% approval will most likely lose the election – was wrong; that it was just a coincidence that the exit polls were correct where there was a paper trail and incorrect (+5% for Bush) where there was no paper trail; that the surge in new young voters had no positive effect for Kerry; that Kerry did worse than Gore against an opponent who lost the support of scores of Republican newspapers who were for Bush in 2000; that voting machines made by Republicans with no paper trail and with no software publication, which have been proven by thousands of computer scientists to be vulnerable in scores of ways, were not tampered with in this election."

and welcome, btw.

::D

the Washington Redskins lost, too. :)

Welcome to DU

NO-PAPER-TRAIL so NO-ONE KNOWS what happened for sure and they don't quote ANY of the principals in this online investigation.

http://news.globalfreepress.com/mp3/fraud04/countdown_on_voting_irregs_Nov10.mp3 10-Nov-2004 21:16 6.9M
http://news.globalfreepress.com/mp3/fraud04/fraud04.mp3 08-Nov-2004 18:05 9.4M

psst... pass the word ;->

Numerous problems with electronic voting machines were reported around the country on Election Day and immediately afterward, but most election officials and experts say the great majority of the machines functioned as expected.

In the strictest democratic terms, if a "majority of the machines functioned as expected", does that mean the machines won?

That line is not mutually exclusive of actual FRAUD either. Of course they "functioned as expected", or more accurately "functioned as PROGRAMMED", you know, if registration is greater than 4:1 in favor of dems, count Kerry votes as bush* and bush* votes as Kerry.

See, they worked perfectly! Especially since there is no way to prove exactly how they functioned!

1) They didn't spontaneously combust
2) They did't start speaking in 'tongues'
3) They didn't offer me a nice cool beer

I'm not sure what their expectations were, are you?

The subroutine to flip the votes to the repugs worked perfectly.

Kerry, only Bush or third paty.

With no correlation other than all favoring the same party. Nothing to see here.

They have 'jumped the gun' yet again but who is surprised with that. Once the fraud is outed I have little doubt there will be another semi-mea culpa from their editorial staff and ombudsman, yawn.

so let's not even look into it.
Let just put it behind us and move on like mature adults.
Let's not be sore losers.
Kerry lost and they told us it was fair despite what we may hear on the internet.
Let's not even consider the possibility of weak security in electronic voting.
Let's not interview any computer experts and let's not even question the fact that the code is a trade"secret".
And it's no problem that Deibold is a contributor to the Republican campaign and a strong supporter of the Right Wing.
And it's ok that the companies hired to count the votes were directly involved the Re-Election campaign.
They are honest people and support the American way...they said so.
How could we dare question their integrity?

---no need to look any further--
the latest tv news announced that there was no fraud.
So I have to believe it.
Whew, I fell so much better to know this.
For a minute there I was starting to worry.

Professor 2

Whew!! The 'internets' really had me going there for awhile.

See ya all in 2008!

but too bad they didn't say http://rawstory.com

ah well. always fun to be in the times, even if they're all about the party line.

be framing this issue from a kinder perspective They should be encouraging the counting of the votes.

people's investigation, aren't they?

Yet another "news organization" promoting the official story instead of investigating the facts.

then the mainstream media would have a hayday disproveing the "sore losers".But seeing as there is complete silence on that subject,you know there must be some truth to the story.

The corporate media is really working hard on this one. It's rather interesting; usually, they simply tend to ignore this stuff and it becomes underground knowledge, if you like. It makes me wonder if allegations of voter fraud are hitting a tender, tender nerve somewhere.

and it is regretable that NYT seems to have lost the conception of it. "Conspiracy theories", as they are called, cry out for findings of proof. Rather than answer the call, our journalist friends provide straw men, "unknowables" and red herrings after the style of Limbaugh.

I'm too new to start a thread. Please post this as a new thread (after you read the article, of course.)

http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/11/The_unexplained_exit_poll_discrepancy_v00k.pdf

What an awesome analyisis!!!!

Send this every where!!!

Freeman's analysis does, at first blush, look legitimate provided the data he used is the correct late exit poll data. This thing might have legs. Having a guy from Penn starting the ball rolling on empirical analysis is a good first step to get us some credibility. Plus, Freeman is an org science guy like me so he must be bloody brilliant!

anybody got an html link?

This guy is not some non partisan professor.

http://sf.appliedresearch.us/webpages/Philadelphia%20Daily%20News%20%2003-31-2003%20%20WHY%20WE%20PROTEST.htm

We are not getting anywhere with this talk of election fraud. My opinion is with David Wade
"I'd give my right arm for Internet rumors of a stolen election to be true," said David Wade, a spokesman for the Kerry campaign, "but blogging it doesn't make it so. We can change the future; we can't rewrite the past."

turn out not to be fraud. That is then used to discredit the search for fraud. Why don't they get off their buts and report about what looks suspicious? If we felt like the press were protecting our right to an open democracy, we'd be sharing their stories. But no, the GE/Viacom/clearchannel press sits and waits until someone tells them it's OK to question.

the evidence is destroyed!

Hmmmmm..........Give us those machines and we'll
tell ya how they were rigged!!!

The Axis of Evil:
Religion, Corporations and the Media

NO reason to waste any time reaging that fascist rag.

like the newyorktimes was on our side before the election.

They know that Republicans don't buy their rag.
An itsy-bitsy show of support for the Dems
will keep them in business.
One kind word from NYT and liberals think they have a voice
and buy a paper.

Better if we use our own voices and not let the NYT
frame our issues for us.


edit for: spelling

Fact: There are problems with our voting system. There always have been and always will be because machines and humans are by nature imperfect.

Fact: We must work to improve the integrity of our voting system. Our democracy depends on it.

Fact: Fraud didn't win this election, Bush did.

Time to move on and get on with the real work of rebuilding our party, learning from our mistakes, and fighting for America.

but your ignoring the fact that some of these companies machines have been banned, diebold in particular has had numerous court judgments against them, their is a potential conflict of interest there, they've been and continue to be secretive. The republicans have fought in congress agains paper trails, a commone sense solution to many election problems.
you want us to just trust in diebold and the republicans for a fair election? Go for it, and watch your Clark lose too.
Fact: We must work to improve the integrity of our voting system. Our democracy depends on it.
thats my favorate one. you shuold get out of denial.

Welcome to D.U. :hi: :hi:

judy miller with her WMD bullshit direct from the mouth of her buddy Achmed Chalabi. Yes this paper has sooo much creibility left... :eyes:

That third 'fact' ::snicker::
"Fact: Fraud didn't win this election, Bush did."

Um, we ain't buying it. (In case you haven't figured that out yet.)

Dem2theMax wrote: "Um, haven't been here much, have you?"

Gee... could you be any more condescending?

I think the case is very weak, unless you argue that the NYT, Cal Tech, MIT, and the Kerry campaign are in on the conspiracy, IMO...

"...For its part, the Kerry campaign has been trying to tamp down the conspiracy theories and to tell supporters that their mission now is to ensure that every vote is counted, not that the election be overturned.

"We know this was an emotional election, and the losing side is very upset," said Daniel Hoffheimer, the lead lawyer for the Kerry campaign in Ohio. But, he said, "I have not seen anything to indicate intentional fraud or tampering."

A preliminary study produced by the Voting Technology Project, a cooperative effort between the California Institute of Technology and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, came to a similar conclusion. Its study found "no particular patterns" relating to voting systems and the final results of the election.

"The 'facts' that are being circulated on the Internet," the study concluded, "appear to be selectively chosen to make the point."

Whether that will ever convince everyone is an open question.

"I'd give my right arm for Internet rumors of a stolen election to be true," said David Wade, a spokesman for the Kerry campaign, "but blogging it doesn't make it so. We can change the future; we can't rewrite the past."

I've looked at the MIT paper you referenced. I wonder if you did, though.

QUOTE: "A preliminary study produced by the Voting Technology Project, a cooperative effort between the California Institute of Technology and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, came to a similar conclusion. Its study found "no particular patterns" relating to voting systems and the final results of the election."

The most serious questions (IMO, at least) being raised by Internet bloggers and others seem to concern the validity of votes counted using the Opti-Scan method, (i.e; the Florida "Dixiecrat" counties, the NH "Nader re-count" districts, the NY senate race that is currently being recounted and possibly overturned,etc...), not other types of electronic voting machines. If you read this paper all the way through, you will notice that, for the purposes of their evaluation, the MIT researchers counted OpScan ballots as part of the PAPER side! (see pg. 4, paragraph 2).

If, as suggested, the problems are with OpScan machines, not ETouch or other types of purely electronic machines, then that (OpScan) data should be compared with paper and other types of data, not lumped in with them. Furthermore, they compared data across states when their graphs clearly show that no state uses only one type of voting method. This could potentially confound results no matter what you are comparing. If at all possible, exit polling vs. result data should be divided into smaller areas than states and also divided further into machine type.

Someone who is an actual statistician (for a living) might be able to suggest further steps to address some of these issues.

I also took a look at their analysis of the Florida "Dixiecrat" phenomenon. I think it is well-done. It still doesn't explain to my satisfaction, however, why it is that OpScan machines are only assigned to "Dixiecrat" counties (county size doesn't explain this either, as the Dopp (?) analysis still shows statistically significant differences when comparing only medium sized counties, both OpScan and Etouch.) Why wouldn't med. sized ETouch counties be just as likely to show the "Dixiecrat" phenomenon as med. sized OpScan counties? Someone needs to do an additional analysis working on this. Maybe it will be me this weekend.

Anyway, I hope someone sees this post since it is buried in the middle of this older message.

'A preliminary study produced by the Voting Technology Project, a cooperative effort between the California Institute of Technology and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, came to a similar conclusion. Its study found "no particular patterns" relating to voting systems and the final results of the election. '

I for one would like to see this "study".
What are the perameters?
Is it a nationwide sample?
One state?
How do they explain the descrepencies in multiple states?

There are a lot of questions about this election, and while the bushistas may stay in power, they still need to be answered better than these crap journalists have.

One thing is for sure, These questions must be aswered in a clear and factual manner without the media spin.

and pretty well destroys both

read through all the posts .... a discussion and analysis and eventually a thorough debunking

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x43258

How can we "work to improve the integrity of our voting system" if we let this go? Now's the chance to look at every crooked detail of BBV, every chance for error. Let's be sure that all the numbers are released & all the analysis is done.

It would be great if enough votes turned up to reverse the outcome of this election. But that's actually secondary to driving a stake into the heart of BBV. If it doesn't happen now it will probably never happen.

If indeed there was fraud involved,
you have dismissed it out of hand.

Why would you advocate that?

there are.

no, I'm not "accepting" these flawed results that are all in Bushit's favor. You'd like it if we'd do that, wouldn't you? but it ain't gonna happen. another American Revolution will happen first.

they had 4 years since 2000, they waited till 2002 to pass HAVA, that just created more problems and confusion. Paper trail bills havent gone anywhere, yesterday wes clark wanted to fix the election system on hardball. he knows we were screwed. they didn't act, let alone on time, the republicans didn't want an honest working election system.

The point is, we can't really know for sure because many of those machines do not permit verification.

other evoting machines after diebold installed unapproved software, and a bunch of problems that disinifranchised voters. shelley is californias secretary of state.

http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/ks_dre_papers/decert.pdf
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/ks_dre_papers/decert1.pdf

:kick:

that the WH fed them? That still has Judith Miller on their payroll? That refuses to do any real investigative journalism anymore?

They can go shove.

The mainstream media, as a whole, is petrified of the blogosphere. They know that we--as a whole--are revolutionizing journalism while they helplessly thrash about trying to decide what do about it.

Blogs are the future, and maybe now, the present of journalism. Unfettered by advertising, corporate control and career-ism, we get to probe at anything we feel like. We don't have to be right every time. We don't have to have all the facts. All we have to do is ask good questions and keep digging. And not go away until we get answers.

We have the media on the run. Articles like this one are proof positive.

When the history of this election is finally written, it will be the blogosphere's coming of age.

Look in your rear view mirror and wave bye-bye to CNN and the grey lady.

NOT!

That article is a weak attempt to disprove us. Let's send this out to everyone at NY TImes:

HOW DARE YOU?! Vote Fraud Theories, Spread by Blogs, Are Quickly Buried is the biggest piece of shit I have ever seen. Have you looked at all the facts? You give one example of the Dixiecrat vote and that dismisses the whole friggin story?!?! Nevermind the fact that it's Bush Pioneers making the machines. It's a total tin foil hat theory to believe there WASN'T fraud:

To believe that Bush won the election, you must also believe:

That the exit polls were wrong; that Zogby's 5pm election day calls for Kerry winning Ohio and Florida were wrong (he was exactly right in his 2000 final poll); that Harris' last-minute polling for Kerry was wrong (he was exactly right in his 2000 final poll); that incumbent rule #1 – undecideds break for the challenger - was wrong; That the 50% rule – an incumbent doesn't do better than his final polling - was wrong; That the approval rating rule – an incumbent with less than 50% approval will most likely lose the election – was wrong; that it was just a coincidence that the exit polls were correct where there was a paper trail and incorrect (+5% for Bush) where there was no paper trail; that the surge in new young voters had no positive effect for Kerry; that Kerry did worse than Gore against an opponent who lost the support of scores of Republican newspapers who were for Bush in 2000; that voting machines made by Republicans with no paper trail and with no software publication, which have been proven by thousands of computer scientists to be vulnerable in scores of ways, were not tampered with in this election.

Need more?

In Craven County, North Carolina, a software error on the electronic voting machines awarded Bush 11,283 extra votes. "The Elections Systems and Software equipment," according to this report, "had downloaded voting information from nine of the county's 26 precincts and as the absentee ballots were added, the precinct totals were added a second time. An override, like those occurring when one attempts to save a computer file that already exists, is supposed to prevent double counting, but did not function correctly."

In Carteret County, North Carolina, "More than 4,500 votes may be lost in one North Carolina county because officials believed a computer that stored ballots electronically could hold more data than it did. Local officials said UniLect Corp., the maker of the county's electronic voting system, told them that each storage unit could handle 10,500 votes, but the limit was actually 3,005 votes. Officials said 3,005 early votes were stored, but 4,530 were lost."

Got expalnations for these too? I bet you don't. What about this?

In LaPorte County, Indiana, a Democratic stronghold, the electronic voting machines decided that each precinct only had 300 voters. "At about 7 p.m. Tuesday," according to this report, "it was noticed that the first two or three printouts from individual precinct reports all listed an identical number of voters. Each precinct was listed as having 300 registered voters. That means the total number of voters for the county would be 22,200, although there are actually more than 79,000 registered voters."

or this:

In Sarpy County, Nebraska, the electronic touch screen machines got generous. "As many as 10,000 extra votes," according to this report, "have been tallied and candidates are still waiting for corrected totals. Johnny Boykin lost his bid to be on the Papillion City Council. The difference between victory and defeat in the race was 127 votes. Boykin says, 'When I went in to work the next day and saw that 3,342 people had shown up to vote in our ward, I thought something's not right.' He's right. There are not even 3,000 people registered to vote in his ward. For some reason, some votes were counted twice."

Then there are recorded conversations with Diebold contractors, testimony from various poll workers and election officials. The unexplained lockdown in Warren County, OH where the explanation was given that it was for "Homeland Security". Apparently Homeland Security didn't get the memo cause they denied it. Why are people lying? Answer that! YOUR PAPER IS LOSING ALL CREDIBILITY. FIRST JASON BLAIR, NOW THIS. YOU ARE A DISAPPOINMENT TO ALL NEW YORKERS!

Jeremy Trudell
jtrudell@comcast.net

If you want to have the recipient read all of your letter, best not to mention excrement in the second sentence. If your objective is to vent and you don't care if anyone reads it, go right ahead. But a calm sober approach will get your letter read and maybe even published, which might advance your true aims best of all.

It breaks my heart to see some of the passionate, worthwhile writings posted here that have been sent to media members. Anything overtly offensive will be tossed, unread.

--this graf in the article: "And the early Election Day polls, conducted for a consortium of television networks and The Associated Press, which proved largely inaccurate in showing Mr. Kerry leading in Florida and Ohio, continued to be offered as evidence that the Bush team somehow cheated."

In other words, the're basing the assumption that the polls were inaccurate on their own assumption that the vote tallies were accurate.

One of the worse & shoddiest pieces of "reporting" that I have ever read in the NYT. Disgraceful.

never proven those documents were faked, yet it all followed as if they did. The reverse works for us. Geez, I wonder why? :shrug:

They are so busy dismissing us they can't even be bothered to learn the terminology. That's how much attention they're paying.

That's what Paul Krugman said during a book signing event in San Diego in September. He said that "last year's conspiracy theories are this year's conventional wisdom" -- so the mainstream press had better start listening to the various so-called conspiracy theories. The question was asked not specifically about voting problems, but about an array of issues. [On the voting fraud issue, he was asked whether he foresaw a problem. As I recall, he answered that he unfortunately thought there was a bout a 25% chance that there would be problems with the election.

during the "60 Minutes" TANG incident???

In fact, the media acted as though bloggers acted heroically to save Dubya from the mean ol' lib'rul CBS.

i remember them being viewed as some sort of savior at the time...some people talked about the blogs as a new independent voice which would eventually replace broadcast news and investigative journalism...hell, they really stuck it to the "most respected" name in broadcast news!!

but when blogs start talking about 9-11's unanswered questions, the environment, the Iraq invasion and vote tampering, then they're just a bunch of tin-foiler x-files fans pecking away in their mom's basement...

all these pre-emptive election stories only reinforce my belief that there was a cover-up

.. but the NYT dismissed us as conspiracy freaks when we ALL fought against the Iraq War, and insisted it was based on LIES...

Gosh.. doesn' the NYT EVER fucking learn??

after falling hook, line and sinker for the 911-WMD-Iraq-
Hussien link!!!

Since they didn't look, Zeller and the other journalists didn't see anything. This story is just a redux of my expert opinion vs. your expert opinion.

Election machinery always has beensomething more than an instrument through which the will of the voters could be made known. It has been the means of influencing the verdict of the electorate. Any change in teh machinery affected hte fortunes of the major factions contending for political power ... No factor is more constant in explaining hte development of election machinery than this one.

McCormick, Richard P., The History of Voting in New Jersey: A Study of the Development of Election Machinery, 1664-1911. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ 1953, p. 217.

The whole election machinery is shaped to inhibit and promote voting of different classes and interest groups in different parts of the country. For Zeller to say there is no evidence of fraud is tantamount to saying there was no election.

I knew the Times was getting lazy, but this is pathetic!

because if there IS something to this, it means they were fooled,too--and fooled by the Bush White House. But then again, how much does one enjoy admitting they've been fooled?

:headbang:
rocknation

.......on Fox. That Shepherd Smith bloke did a report saying in effect that it was a hot issue in the blogoshpere, but had no basis in fact. Said the Kerry campaign had had a look in Ohio and found nothing to complain about.

But the first sign of a story breaking is when Fox says it's all nonsense. They're kinda trying to kill it at birth.

Could be a good sign for future coverage!!

A non-profit music advocacy group is offering a $100,000 reward to anyone with evidence of voting fraud that could change the outcome of the presidential race, RAW STORY has learned

http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=417

On another note. This is my first post here after being a longtime blogger on the JK for Pres. site. They shut down that blog without any warning to the many bloggers and left many people out in the cold without even a chance to say goodbye to the many friends that were made over the campaign.
A pretty crappy decision if I may say so.

They really should have warned the people blogging there before they shut the doors. How awful.
I'm new here too, and really appreciate this site A LOT. Welcome.

I am a refugee from the JK site.

I think the DNC screwed up a fantastic chance it had to push all the bloggers from the JK site to a new blog on the DNC site if they had thought of it. Would have been a good chance to keep people informed and call up any action that may have been needed.

But I guess that would have called for a little vision. Something they are on the short end of right now.

Perhaps they can incorporate that reward (that was never claimed) for anyone who had seen Bush pull any duty in Alabama.

What a *^%#@ he is.

But hell, it's a start, like you say. I wish Soros would put up some $; I sure would if I had that kind of $.

The news was going on and on about how great blogs were for 'breaking' the case, they were interviewing everybody with a Pro-Bush blog...But now that the Democratic side of the internet has a problem, it's brushed off as a nuisance...

but the Shrub documents were the evidence. In other words there were specific things wrong with them that can be pointed out. There is just no hard evidence of voter fraud and until there is I am not going to get my hopes up.

There is no proof the documents are real, but there was also no proof that they were fakes.

later proved to be without merit.

Remember the "typed on a computer using MS Word"? Wrong, the memos were typed on a typewriter. Remember "Times New Roman"? Oops, wrong font. Remember the "superscript" canard? Wrong again, typewriters of the time could do that.

The media loved to throw around the "forged document" phrase with no facts to back it up, while praising the brave posters on Free Republic, without checking the credibility of the experts they cited. They also turned the story into the questioning of the documents, not Bush's failure to report for required duty, or the corroborating evidence of eyewitness testimony.

Meanwhile, we've got legitimate beefs with Republican connections to Diebold, which the media ignores. We've got numerous reports of severe voting irregularities, which the media brushes off as "isolated incidents". Darn right we're pissed.

they attack the messenger and ignore the message. They should be exposing all the instances of voter suppression, running a series, interviewing these alleged conspiracy theorists to check for the aluminum foil hats they're intimating.

"It's a miracle!!" how votes in Cuyahoga County Ohio in small precincts showed votes in excess (up to, I think, 150% in some cases) relative to the actual number of voters registered -- AND the majority of the votes were for BUSH!!! Oh, Brothers and Sisters!!! It's a MIRACLE!!! Halleleujah!

I hope Kerry's lawyers are taking all this down.