RE: Nader wanting a NH recount. He's trying to screw us.

Kerry, at the moment, has 252 EV's.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/president/

And he won NH which has 4 EV's, by about 10,000 votes.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/NH/P/00/index.html

Has it occurred to anyone that Nader is actually working for Bush in NH, trying to swing the state to him and put Kerry down at 248 EV's, where getting Ohio's 20 EV's wouldn't even win it for Kerry anymore?

Kerry was leading in exit polls by a huge margin. If we believe in exit polls, Kerry can only pull ahead.
If exit polls are no good, then, well, what FRAUD?

What the hell kind of sense does that make?

Nader is trying to FUCK us. We only won by 10,000 votes out of 700,000!

What harm can looking into NH do? It can only do good. If they can find evidence of fraud in NH--padding the popular vote--then things could break wide open.

Not in New Hampshire, not in any state.
Kerry conceded and told us to follow Bush.
Nader can do whatever it is he is doing.
I also don't understand why he would go for New Hamphsire and not other states where Kerry lost, but apparently it's cheaper down there.
Reminds me of a drunk who was looking for his keys under the light and not where he lost them.
LOL.
Cheer up, we have nothing to lose at this point.
Having 252 EV means shit, when you need 270 to win.

What the Hell.....we are already in the shitter. I'm willing to see this through....it does make sense....the snowball theory that is.

That person posted it on Du about a week ago. They think that if they can prove fraud in NH, then it would legitimize investigations everywhere. But it costs about $40K. Today they posted on DU that they had the money raised and were going to try for a manual recount.

it is 2000 bucks to do this and... you get the "precedent" to go after other states.

I know you are having a nice case of paranoia and you should, they are out to get us, but you and I cannot do anything and for MANY reasons you will not have Kerry do it... (think Tactics here and Nixon and 1960)

Nader is about as far from a corporate flunky as any politician I know. He is NOT out to help Bush's cabal. Dude has spent his life fighting against Big Business and Big Brother.

since day one. He has an ego about the size of NH. He's a multi-millionaire trying to pretend to be a populist, but in reality he uses those millions to control his prestige with a number of (worthy) non-profits since he becomes a big donor. He ain't no Mother Theresa and he has displayed the most arrogant disregard for liberal causes in the 2000 and 2004 elections, unless... you really believe there is no difference between the two major parties (to some extent that is true, but do you really believe it to the extent Nader does?).

If he does something useful in NH, it will be a side-effect and the first positive one in about 6 years from this guy. - K

They're having Nader try to put the race out of Kerry's reach under the GUISE of our own complaints!

The numbers don't lie.

Democratic Kerry
340,019 50%
Republican Bush
(Incumbent)
330,848 49%
Independent Nader
4,447 1%

of this election and get behind fearless leader?

mouth.

:eyes:

This whole issue can backfire if the recount goes smooth.

that DO NOT SUPPLY AN AUDIT

He's working for BUSH.

just to dig further into your paranoid delusion.....

We WON NH by less than 10,000 votes, actually, by 1%, and it kept us within striking distance of the presidency contingent on winning Ohio.

Now Nader wants a recount in NH. Yeah, he's just trying to help us.

Come ON, people! THINK!

Like he has tried to do for years.

His point has always been that the two parties are too much alike, beholden to big business.

What is your worry?
It's not like we won OH.

of winning, it's only through Ohio.

The exit polls showed Kerry *way* ahead and then he wins by one percent? Come on. Something is fishy.

Something tangible, not just your own personal musings.

should be enough to raise your eyebrows.

A recount in a state that we WON....yeeeaahhhhh....

We lost. Kerry conceded.
What difference does it make. And I don't think Nader is working for Bush.
He was asked by people to do a recount.

concession speeches are not binding

Concesion speeches are not binding

Concession speeches are not binding

And if they are truly doing something behind close doors they will NOT come out unless THEY FIND THE EVIDENCE... nor will they tell you, hey shhhh we are donig somethign about it.

all that matters are the EV. If they chnage to 270 kerry, unlikely as that is, he wins.

... so the US crumbles, and THEN he and his followers can step in and take control.

I see nothing to date that indicates he's got religion for the Democratic party. Quite the reverse, in fact.

I have nothing personally against him, other than that he wants the US to crumble and collapse; he's a good debater, asks the questions everyone else is afraid to look at and he makes populist points that no one else is doing.

It's the sticky wicket of his wanting the current system to collapse that makes me suspicious of everything he does, and since we have not heard him state that he wants to help the Democratics (makes me laugh just to think of him saying that), there's no reason to believe he's abandoned his agenda of tearing down the system. Hence, I must look at his actions in NH with that perspective and wonder what he's up to - and it doesn't look good.

However, if OHIO breaks wide open first, NH will be irrelevant, which is what I hope happens.

If Nader supporters really think he's on the up and up, they would also hope OH breaks first so that NH becomes irrelevant and the Democratics win, but they don't want that, they only want Nader or a disaster.

How many times have you heard them say there's no difference between the parties? Remember that when you watch Nader in action.


Show your support for the president, wear a FUCK BUSH button!

http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13
(We usually ship same or next business day by first class mail)

If he were working for Bush he wouldn't be on TV everyday saying Bush stole the election. He wouldn't be working for recounts in Ohio with cobb and Bednarik. What he is doing IS NOT in Bush's best interests.

Isn't that the point of this recount?? Once/if we find out that the exit polls are right...this opens the door... NH exit polls were way off the final tally - this is a perfect place to start...

I beleive those would be optical scan machines.

if ONE problem pops up in NH, it opens the door for us to demand other states to investigate... Unless, they know there was no fraud in NH and are setting us up...

Well, Ralph better be careful how he makes his bed...

This worries me.

Unless whomever manipulated the vote is clumsy and reckless, they wouldn't commit fraud in a state where there's a paper trail, would they? It's possible, but very reckless.

I would think fraud would more likely be committed where there is evoting, where there is no paper trail. If recounting in NH happens first and no fraud shows up, then the effort to pursue fraud in evoting areas of Florida and Ohio would, IMO, be much more difficult to pull off.

I'm also worried that no one is resisting the NH recount effort. If there was fraud and more than one person knows about it, you would think that RW lawyers would be coming out of the woodwork to deny legality of a recount, protest against it, and do everything to stop it.

trying to do.

We lost. Period. We lost in OH. The 4 electoral votes mean shit.
Unless we can prove FRAUD.
:eyes:
WTF are you worried about?
That we lose by 248 EV instead of 252 EV?
Does it make a difference?
And if you don't want to donate to Nader, donate to Cobb and Badnarik.
They want to recount OH-which makes a lot more sense since we actually lost OH.

Bush.

We've put all out eggs in Ohio, and Nader is attacking us at a weak point so that even if we do win Ohio we still won't have enough.

Oh sorry the election was on the up and up and we all have to trust them, and distrust anybody who is asking questions

I see now

SHHHH


We see.

Look the machines have to be exposed and quite frankly if this is done through Nader or the left handed Widget I don't care... the machines have to be exposed or I guarantee you, we will NEVER, EVER AGAIN win an election in this country even if we run Jesus Christ...

Dig it?

your OWN STATE!!

That's political judo BULLSHIT, and it's an excuse for Nader to work for Bush.

I dunno...maybe...TO GET TO THE GODDAMNED CHICKEN COOP??????

Anyone with a lick of sense knows we can't trust Nadir at ALL!

even in NH, and it was a squeaker for Kerry... just like every other state.

It just happens to be the cheaper state to try the theory.

I know maybe too hard to understand

By the way, concesion speeches are NOT LEGALLY BINDING

There are plenty of things to bitch about in this world, but efforts to get an accurate count of the votes should not be one of them.

DON'T YOU WANT KERRY TO WIN??

It could be possible but I think democrats asked him to do this didn't they? I mean Bev Harris and the BBV folks?

want a recount in a state we won by such a thin margin.

Lizzy says Democrats aren't asking for a recount.

As for Nader, apparently concerned citizens (according to Nader) contacted him and asked him to ask for recounts. I also don't really understand why Nader would pick NH, considering we won there. But apparently NH is cheap and has a paper trial.

so you telling me that Bev Harris has an ulterior motive too?

different than Nader's.

See post #68 for more explanation. I've been posting about it for a week now.

I wonder what causes this phenomenon? Our nerves are frayed, I guess.

Everyone has done the math and looked at the EV numbers bgl. Of course, ANYTHING is possible. Nader could be working for bin Laden or Putin, or perhaps helping NH secessionists. (don't mean to be too harsh on you BullGooseLoony :-))

Several states are up in the air. Your fear is way too speculative to blow a gasket over at this point.

If there were any chance of NH winding up in Bush's column that would also imply that the other state's are not worth looking at either.

Think it through a little more. We are having a difficult enough time getting the known facts in front of the public and are already being called conspiracy theorists.

If you really want to explore it, pm me and we can talk about it all day long.

on edit - changed "dozens" to "several"

Given Nader's history it should be taken seriously.

For all the things he might be, he is honest as the day is long.......It's more likely that Kerry was bought than Nader. (and before you go off on this tangent, no, I don't think Kerry was bought)

I stripped down naked and went running through the streets at dawn this morning screaming "Terry McAuliffe must die!!" so I know how you feel. :-)

:crazy:

You asked Nader to recount NH. (blink blink)

We WON NH, and you asked him to recount.

FREAKING UNBELIEVABLE.

www.invisibleida.com -- for the explanation, along with these "facts" -- three elections in a row (2002, 2004 primaries, and 2004 General) with "weird" numbers, easily identifiable precincts where things are wonky, three methods of vote counting, including Hand Counted Paper Ballots which show the problems with the Optical Scan stuff, AND no "secret agenda" because Kerry won. Prove there's fraud there (which we can do pretty easily with a recount), and its easy to take it elsewhere...:) Best, Ida

I suspect the count will only help Kerry. But Nader's recount isn't for the whole state. If he just recounts the Republican counties, that could hurt.

Jesus. Come on, folks.

Do you know anything about Nader other than that he ran in the last two elections?

have?

other than his running for president. Somebody else help me out here...though it's probably a lost cause. The man's WHOLE LIFE has been selflessly dedicated to fighting the big guys.

and keeps us in the running contingent on Ohio, is a pretty odd move for someone that wants to "fight the big guys."

and he's right. It's just that we see * as Satan. And rightfully so.

And he wants to recount something. LOL.
What are you afraid of?
Exit polls showed Kerry way ahead. If we are to trust the exit polls, Kerry should pick up votes, not lose them.

Cobb and Badnarik are collecting money for OH recounts.
They need 80,000 more $ to recount OH.
www.votecobb.org

Some people here are just itching to stir up shit it seems.

Recounting a state we won by a very slim margin makes all kinds of sense. In fact, it's genius.

Because I came up with the "strategy" based on the numbers you can find at the website I referred you to. Look, I've been talking about this for a week, and its been quite the challenge to make this happen, so I'd appreciate it if you stopped with the stupid paranoia crap, unless you really are trying for the "loony" in your name. At the end of the day, either a) everything comes out okay (and the study results which show SMALL RURAL POPULATIONS TRENDING MORE LIBERAL THAN LARGER URBAN POPULATIONS is true, or b) we find a bug.

Personally, I'm starting to think the people who DON'T want to recount New Hampshire are on Rove's payroll because they know we'll find something there!

:eyes:

companies and didn't have much money. He used to buy several suits and pairs of shoes, etc. at the same time when they were on sale to save money. He's frugal, intelligent and idealistic...he isn't doing it to screw over anyone. He's doing it because the thinks it's the right thing to do as long as the money is there to do it.

Yes with a big ego, but he's a fighter for the "little guy" being screwed by big corporations and this cause is right up his alley... Bev pushed for this because she has the info/stats for these areas - don't know if they're repub but I'll assume they are crucial to her theory...

Hey - Bullgooselooney - haven't you been following the "story" here?? This is "step one"...some Kerry insiders here keep saying be patient so let's see how this plays out - all we can do is try...and hope.

I don't think he'd want this at ALL. This is DUMB.

But then Kerry doesn't want any recounts. There are numerous states Kerry could have asked for recounts in. Kerry came close in several small states. Kerry collected the money for recounts. Kerry is not asking for recounts. So, excuse me if I don't particulary care if Kerry wants this at this point.

Go look here for the reason why -- www.invisibleida.com -- and PM me if you have any questions.

Could you explain why you don't want to compare 1996 election data from when there were much fewer machines and there was sparse voting irregularities, unlike the 2000 election which was rife with fraud?

Show your support for the president, wear a FUCK BUSH button!

http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13
(We usually ship same or next business day by first class mail)

The problem is getting it. Are you volunteering for my data gathering team? :) Best, Ida

included. It would bolster the case either way, since there was surely less problems then than now and than there were in the 2000 elections.

Show your support for the president, wear a FUCK BUSH button!

http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13
(We usually ship same or next business day by first class mail)

Nothing unclear about that.

Great move. Great.

Because we need a recount in EVERY state we could get it, the deadline for filing was coming up quickly, and nobody else was willing to do it.

Nader is a hero.

As for Kerry, anybody who thinks that he'd become President if the electoral votes went his way, is nuts. He'd just concede in the interests of bipartisan unity.

The corporate parties are not in favor of democracy. They are in favor of the status quo, because it benefits them. The status quo doesn't happen to be particularly democratic, and they couldn't care less.

The fear, loathing and hatred of Nader here on DU is really frightening. Despite the proven fraud in Florida 2000, there are still people here on DU saying it was Nader's fault Gore lost. You can't reason with them and they don't care about the facts. They are like freepers and they stick to their soundbites and hate.

Now there are also Democratic Party loyalists who don't care how many times we are lied to and betrayed, because the only thing that matters to them is that the corporate parties stay in power and that there is never any viable opposition to corporate rule (fascism).

It was possible to believe that Democrats were ignorant enough to really think that no fraud occurred in Florida 2000, that hundreds of thousands of people weren't illegally removed from the voting rolls there, that there was no intimidation, no voting irregularities, and that it was Nader rather than the Supreme Court that cost Gore the election, and that it was therefore justifiable to infiltrate the Green Party, force Nader off the ballot so he'd have to run as an independent, and then to try by every means possible to keep him off the ballot in as many states as they could. I say it WAS possible to believe that there was so much ignorance, but it isn't possible this time.

This hatred of Nader is learned hatred and it is hatred that is encouraged. It is no more based on reason than any other phobia. If Kerry didn't win the election in a particular state, and only seemed to win due to computer fraud sophisticated enough to give him some states with few electoral votes, while giving most of the electoral votes to the chimp, do you really not want to know that? Do you care more about the corporate parties than about the integrity of our election system and the accuracy of vote-counting? Is your political party more important than the foundation of democracy itself? If so, it is no wonder than you can feel comfortable in a puke-controlled country, because they feel the same way. The corporate parties are in total agreement that the corrupt two-party system is more important than democracy.

Nader and I, and quite a few DUers, disagree.

"As for Kerry, anybody who thinks that he'd become President if the electoral votes went his way, is nuts. He'd just concede in the interests of bipartisan unity."

If he got the electoral votes, he would become president. Period. By the way, why do you bother posting here at DU when you're not a Democrat and hold them all in contempt?

Many of us are small d democrats, instead of big D Democrats.

I really happen to think that if Kerry got the electoral votes, knowing that he'd have to contend with the war, the deficit, and a puke controlled Congress, he'd probably figure out a way to say that he didn't want to undermine the legitimacy of somebody he'd already conceded to, and reconcede. If he'd wanted the Presidency, he'd have fought for it the way he promised to. He seems to be happier with the $45 million that was intended for recounts sitting in his war chest, which he can use for future elections, or possibly even for his own personal use.

Now if DU wants to kick off the small d democrats, and restrict the board only to big D Democrats, I'll leave. I'm not making any secret of my position.

And if DU wants to make Nader-hatred a prerequisite to posting, I'll be happy to leave for that reason also. I don't like hate boards.

So far DU has been open to many democratic (small d) views. If that should change, I'm outtahere.

and second, it has nothing to do with 2000. that is done and over, and as you say even with the nader vote, we know bush stole in 2000 florida. i dont trust nader because for the last 6 months i have actaully watched and listened to the man. prior to that i didnt have much interest in him at all. i lost respect for the man watching him the last 6 months being dishonest. dishonest is as dishonest does. he would talk about the dishonesty of both of the major party as i saw him yuk.........just total lack of integrity. i listened to him on talk shows. he is limited in experience in many ways, yet dictates in his bubbled world how all are to live.

not impressed by the man. not with his behavior of the last months. not with who he used to get his way. not by the words that he said

so not all that have issue with nader is so easy lumped into learned hatred. some of us, may simply not trust or respect the man. and maybe he earned that by his actions.

not for Kerry. It doesn't matter though - it's all good!

New Mexico's provisional ballots are still being counted.
http://www.alternet.org/election04/20493/

The AP called it. CNN called it. The Farmington Times called it. By Nov. 9, Bush had close to a 7,000-vote lead in New Mexico.

Despite early evidence that Bush had won, both Secretary of State Rebecca Vigil-Giron and Gov. Bill Richardson maintained that the uncounted provisional ballots would swing the state to Kerry.

END

The article goes on to state that Richardson has sadi that the provisionals will give the state to Kerry by about 1%,

New Hampshire has only 4 EC votes. NM has 5.

Richardson delivered NM to Gore in 2000. I'm wondering if he can pull it off again this year, and negate a possible NH recount loss.

Maybe Nader is working on our behalf.

i dont trust him at all

to believe such nonsense!? It's insane!

If the exit polls showed that Kerry would win NH big, then why would you be concerned that he would lose it in a recount? You said yourself...he only won by 10,000 votes. Why only 10,000...shouldn't he have won by way, way more????? Maybe it was slated to be in Bushes column...or maybe enough fraud to pad the popular vote. If Kerry comes out not even having won it...then what are the chances he won Ohio????? If the recounts proved he won by way more than 10,000...that proves there was fraud...and we can check all states....including Florida. We aren't just counting on Ohio. Bottom line: we have next to nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Also...Nader has an excellent history...it's the recent half dozen years that are suspect. The man has no personal life because he's devoted his entire life to his work. Whatever his plan, I believe he is trying to do what he thinks is best for the country. He may be wrong or misguided...that I don't know.

They won it, don't fix it. Never mind the little man behind the curtain.

Those of us who are concerned about the integrity of our election system, feel that it is important to know if there was widespread fraud or not. Because if there was, no matter who wins, our votes don't count. We don't register, study the candidates, contribute to and campaign for those we like, and then vote for them, just so that our votes won't count. We want our votes to count. Accurately.

I understand that all you care about is Kerry winning. Can you understand that some of us care about the integrity of our election system? We all cared about Kerry winning, until he conceded (after promising not to), and didn't contest the election (after promising to). It appears that we were more concerned about him winning than he was.

But since he won't spend the $45 million he collected from us to ensure that our votes counted, we're contributing money to people who will. That's Nader, Badnarik, and Cobb.

If Kerry won New Hampshire by 2%, when, without fraud he would have won by 10% or 15%, then in the next election he or another Democratic candidate can lose New Hampshire and people will say that it was so close last time that it is plausible that he lost some support. However if we can prove that he actually won by a much larger margin than the vote count now shows, he, or some other Democratic candidate, can be assured that they have Democratic support in New Hampshire.

In order to think that by asking for a recount, Nader is trying to hurt Kerry or the Democrats, you have to believe that a lot of Democrats in New Hampshire, people who usually vote Democratic and who indicated in early polls and exit polls that they prefer Democrats, mysteriously decided to vote for Bush.

I've been to New Hampshire, I know they're not a bunch of morans up there, and I don't buy it.

I don't trust Nader.

If he wanted to find out if there is fraud, he'd be asking for a recount in New Mexico or Nevada (though I forgot if he was on the ballot there), where there was some indication of touch screen machines giving some funky results (saying a voter voted for Bush when they voted for Kerry). Another close state where Kerry lost is Iowa.

Otherwise there's always Florida. I think New Hampshire is a convenient target because it's one of two where he made a difference in '00. Plus, all the polls beforehand in the state showed it to be close - it was a toss up to the end. This time he couldn't bother with FL because the margin was so great.

If you would rather validate another 4 years of the chimp, just to avoid having to let Nader help us prove the election was stolen due to widespread fraud, that's up to you.

Nader asked for a recount exactly where IdaBriggs and BBV asked him to, in the state where they believed that it would be most easily possible to prove that votes were stolen from Kerry. Yes, Kerry won New Hampshire, but by an inexplicably small margin.

But if Ida and Bev had asked him to request a recount in any other state, he'd have done whatever they asked.

If you don't trust Nader, why not see if Kerry will ask for a recount in New Mexico or Nevada? Or anywhere? You do trust Kerry, right?

Nader didn't decide where to ask for a recount. If you'd bothered to read this thread and the links Ida posted, you'd know that. I don't trust people who post replies before they've read the thread.

What happends if the recount goes great? We wont have a foot to stand on.. All the headlines in the MSM will read "Even with Recount - Evoteing goes smooth". I think this can backfire bad if nothing is found.

Sorry, but I don't trust Nader as far as I can pick him up and throw him.