Why so many counties went from Blue to Red in '04

according to USAToday
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-31-red-america_x.htm

(detailed explanations in the article of each of the following points):

"1) Wartime President

2) Poor perception of toughness on part of Democrats & nominees

3) Values...for example, same-sex marriage, abortion, fear of gun control

4) the Move-In People

5) Republicans out-campaigned Democrats

In dozens of interviews with voters in Florida, Michigan, Missouri and New Jersey, no Bush voter mentioned Social Security. Many who cited Iraq as their reason for supporting him also said they oppose the war or have concerns about his conduct of it."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-31-red-america_x.htm

that Republicans get thier voters to the polls, and the Dems absolutely suck at it. In many states, even OH, they had to bus in volunteers from NY to get out the vote. Furthermore, in OH the party leaves it up to the unions to get voters to the polls (at least as it was reported on NPR). IF that is true, that is pathetic, and the Repubs shouldn't waste their time cheating if our leadership is so pathetic as to let someone else get out the vote for us.

1. Rigged machines

2. Fraudulent absentee ballots

It was like a hidden election," says Tim Storey, political analyst
at the National Conference of State Legislatures. "The result
was remarkable and not easy to
explain."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/state/2004-12-14-dems-hidden-election_x.htm?POE=click-refer

Another flag of evidence in another stolen election.

Local governments make very important decisions that have just as much effect on people's daily lives as those of the federal government. If the GOP went to the effort of fixing the election, why would they cede control of local government?

My theory that the US is devolving into regions.

In my area for instance the local DemChairman
is/was very interested in the emachine situation.

Who places the machines. Who counts the votes.

Locally, the Dems did well in our area.

The Senate race was strange. A ChristianFundy got
way more votes than expected against
Blanche Lincoln. Who counted the Senate votes.

local elections. Heck, I will vote Republican in locals if they are running a better candidate.

is to continue to mitigate the slow-motion collapse of the economy that actually began right before * took office after the tech bubble burst. * actually made this worse by "talking down" the economy at that time so that he would have a rationale for his tax cuts for the top one percent.

So far they've thrown massive Keynesian stimulus at it in the form of wars, tax cuts and deficit spending to keep the economic Titanic known as the USA afloat. Still, it's not been a robust recovery and has been the worst in terms of job creation in something like 134 years. And our position is a debtor to the world is the worst in history. Only the dollar's role as reserve currency saves us or we'd already be a northern hemisphere version of Argentina.

If the ship suddenly capsizes with the GOP at the helm, everyone will suddenly reappraise the situation. At that point, the neocons are faced with a choice. Do they go forward with elections or clamp down with the police state and more staged terror attacks. I vote for the latter.

actually made this worse by "talking down" the economy at that time so that he would have a rationale for his tax cuts for the top one percent.

I'vce been saying this.. durign the campaign in 2000 he keps saying "I see signs that the economy is going south" or something to that effect.. and THAT KILLED THE ECONOMY

have forgotten about that...Dubya "talking down the economy" was one of the scariest aspects of the 2000 campaign, and, even worse, they kept accusing Gore of "talking down the economy" to divert attention from what Dubya was doing.....

It was Orwellian right from the giddiyup!

THE PLAN IS NOT FOR THE USA TO ATTACK IRAN as
“leaked” to Seymour Hirsh. The leaks to Hirsh, and all the
noise going on in the media, is merely to stir up the
Ayatollahs like a hornet’s nest, as Roosevelt stirred up
the Japanese before Pearl Harbor, and for the same
reasons, and with the same consequences: That IRAN
should attack the USA. And to provoke that happening,
ISRAEL will first attack Iran.

Of one thing we may be certain: The powerful Neocons in
the United States are NOT dumb.
But the US is running out of time.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2095-1461961,00.html

(the Governement-Corporate-Media complex)

Here's your proof (where does the public get these crazy ideas?):

Bush Supporters Still Believe Iraq Had WMD or Major Program,
Supported al Qaeda

Agree with Kerry Supporters Bush Administration Still Saying This is the Case

Agree US Should Not Have Gone to War if No WMD or Support for al Qaeda

Bush Supporters Misperceive World Public as Not Opposed to Iraq War,
Favoring Bush Reelection

Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.

Similarly, 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found. Sixty percent of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. Here again, large majorities of Kerry supporters have exactly opposite perceptions.

These are some of the findings of a new study of the differing perceptions of Bush and Kerry supporters, conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes and Knowledge Networks, based on polls conducted in September and October.

Steven Kull, director of PIPA, comments, "One of the reasons that Bush supporters have these beliefs is that they perceive the Bush administration confirming them. Interestingly, this is one point on which Bush and Kerry supporters agree." Eighty-two percent of Bush supporters perceive the Bush administration as saying that Iraq had WMD (63%) or that Iraq had a major WMD program (19%). Likewise, 75% say that the Bush administration is saying Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda. Equally large majorities of Kerry supporters hear the Bush administration expressing these views--73% say the Bush administration is saying Iraq had WMD (11% a major program) and 74% that Iraq was substantially supporting al Qaeda.

Steven Kull adds, "Another reason that Bush supporters may hold to these beliefs is that they have not accepted the idea that it does not matter whether Iraq had WMD or supported al Qaeda. Here too they are in agreement with Kerry supporters." Asked whether the US should have gone to war with Iraq if US intelligence had concluded that Iraq was not making WMD or providing support to al Qaeda, 58% of Bush supporters said the US should not have, and 61% assume that in this case the President would not have. Kull continues, "To support the president and to accept that he took the US to war based on mistaken assumptions likely creates substantial cognitive dissonance, and leads Bush supporters to suppress awareness of unsettling information about prewar Iraq."

More: http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/html/new_10_21_04.html

A nice way of saying "insanity" or if rich "eccentricity."

But since the majority of Bush supporters
must be poor, they would also be insane.

how many of these counties implemented use of the extremist rightwing manufactured "voting" machines.

NGU.