You realize, don't you, that we've won the the last 5 Presidential elections?

Just because the GOP stole 2 of the last 5 elections, it does not mean we did not win. Since 1992, Democrats have won the White House every time. We DO choose winners. Our candidates DO win.

So, to you lurking self-important, deluded Freepers, now that WE have all the power, we are gonna fix our electoral system so you can NEVER steal another election again. TWIRL ON IT!

I haven't heard Kerry claim he won in '04.

Personally, I think it's silly. There were certainly the usual attempts at vote suppression and some disturbing anomalies, but the end result closely matched the polling average. The infamous exit polls were not evidence of fraud; Nate Silver made a post describing how they are often highly unreliable before readjustment based on the actual results.

Exit polls have been routinely used to spot election fraud, precisely becuase of their accuracy. The 2004 'adjustment' was an absurd anomaly, as was the election itself.

A good clue can be found in GOP attempts to both discredit exit polling data following 2004, and to prevent the practice itself. Blithely ignoring the hundred other clues is not good for democracy. You should read more. Freeman. Bradblog. RFK Jr. Really, it was a stolen election.

They need to be adjusted based on the ACTUAL turnout in various regions.

For instance, let me give you a scenario with Candidate A and Candidate B in an election in a state with Region C and Region D.

In past elections Region C and Region D had equal turnout. That is they each held 50% of the state's votes.

The exit poll finds that in Region C, Candidate A got 70% of the vote, and in Region D, Candidate B got 60% of the vote. Before they know the actual turnout in the two regions, the exit pollers assume that Region C and Region D have equal turnout as they have before. What this means is that initially the exit polls would say for the overall state:
Candidate A: 55%
Candidate B: 45%

However, once the election returns are all in, it becomes clear that Region D had a large increase in turnout. Instead of being 50/50 in turnout, the actual result was that Region C had 30% of the turnout, and Region D had 70% of the turnout. As a result, the exit poll would NEED to be adjusted. The adjusted results would yield a different result:
Candidate A: 49%
Candidate B: 51%

This sort of regional adjustment is therefore key to the results. You cannot just randomly sample a few thousand voters in a state because that is subject to huge errors based on large regional and other differences. For instance, if an exit polling organization accidently oversampled black areas of Mississippi, it would look like the Democrat had won, which would obviously be false.

They MUST weight the regional results based on the actual turnout each region has. Therefore, exit polls are much less accurate before the returns come in because you cant weight based on actual turnout yet. They become MUCH more accurate when the turnout is known. That is when they can be adjusted and that end result is what should be used to see whether there is fraud.

They need to be adjusted based on the ACTUAL turnout in various regions.

For instance, let me give you a scenario with Candidate A and Candidate B in an election in a state with Region C and Region D.

In past elections Region C and Region D had equal turnout. That is they each held 50% of the state's votes.

The exit poll finds that in Region C, Candidate A got 70% of the vote, and in Region D, Candidate B got 60% of the vote. Before they know the actual turnout in the two regions, the exit pollers assume that Region C and Region D have equal turnout as they have before. What this means is that initially the exit polls would say for the overall state:
Candidate A: 55%
Candidate B: 45%

However, once the election returns are all in, it becomes clear that Region D had a large increase in turnout. Instead of being 50/50 in turnout, the actual result was that Region C had 30% of the turnout, and Region D had 70% of the turnout. As a result, the exit poll would NEED to be adjusted. The adjusted results would yield a different result:
Candidate A: 49%
Candidate B: 51%

This sort of regional adjustment is therefore key to the results. You cannot just randomly sample a few thousand voters in a state because that is subject to huge errors based on large regional and other differences. For instance, if an exit polling organization accidently oversampled black areas of Mississippi, it would look like the Democrat had won, which would obviously be false.

They MUST weight the regional results based on the actual turnout each region has. Therefore, exit polls are much less accurate before the returns come in because you cant weight based on actual turnout yet. They become MUCH more accurate when the turnout is known. That is when they can be adjusted and that end result is what should be used to see whether there is fraud.

Kerry "lost" by Ohio. It is hardly silly.

to match the final "results."

"DU dogma." You just keep on with that one. More and more evidence shows that Ohio was indeed stolen.

Voter suppression IS stealing elections. "Disturbing anomalies" - without a full accounting of every unit and all the software involved - IS stealing elections.

The fact is that exit polls are used to verify election results ALL OVER THE WORLD - except in the US - for the very reason that they are a reliable indicator to expose fraud.

More than a year after the 2004 general election, indictments against county workers suggest the Ohio recount was not conducted legally.

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3073

Siegelman and Cleland and Barnes didn't lose at the ballot box. Neither did Kerry.

and this is what you come up with?

Free Republic will never agree with the TRUTH. That the Grand Old Phucks stole the '04 election. But guess what - around here he is known as President Kerry....

Bush is the ONLY person to be placed in office by the Supreme Court.

So... yes... Kerry won not only by popular vote but the electoral vote was stolen from him.

...your propaganda.

It depends on who wants to do the changing and who's trying to stop them. People matter.

We will have a new set of personalities in leadership roles and we certainly will have a different White House. We have better margins across the board than the GOP during the Bush years, we don't need 60 - we just need a properly committed and competent majority.

right now, that threat is treated the same as the actual event. I think we'll see much of this posturing has been bluffing on the GOP's part and they will blink when faced down and called out to act on their threats - esp from the position of weakness they will shortly find themselves in. These are, after all, conservatives we are talking about - they always prefers to run from a real fight and then call it a victory.

Besides, as I mentioned above- the GOP did plenty with less. They found many ways around the threat of filibusters without 60 votes and they aren't half as smart or effective as Barack Obama or the new Democratic party he is in the process of building. I would have preferred 60 or more, of course, but we'll do just fine with gains we've made until the margins are increased even further down the road.

They just say filibuster and it's done. Of course we could change the rules back, I doubt they will though.

David

an actual filibuster if they desire one - so once again it comes back to the people involved, and I suspect that the next session of Congress is going to be markedly different than the one we have now in that regard.

The selection of Rahm for CoS gives the signal. There will be more discipline now when it's time to crack the whip. Once again - people matter. Elections matter. Expect things to change. That was the message, remember?

Buck up. You seem depressed. We won.

If you want that 60 seat insurance on top of this historic victory, then just keep paying your dues. As everyone has been saying - The real work starts now, after the election. Its taken quite a slide to get into the hole, and it's going to take a little bit to climb back out, although it will happen sooner than most think. Just take that shovel and put it away. It won't do you any good in a ditch. Look up to the sky, not down into the muddy hole.

That blue sky is the future, Dave. The sky is the limit.

My gay friends seem to be the most depressed.

David

Fortunately it's not likely to stand, but the fact that it happened at all was the wake up call that we all need to stay sharp and hungry post election.

Plenty of work to do, and that's the proof. The more committed, involved and passionate it makes people feel as Democrats, the better.

eliminate filibustering, then right before the next election put it back

If they could have. That says it all.

Bush "won" by the narrowest margins in the history of the country, not exactly a ringing endorsement for conservatism. And yes I use the term "won" falsely.

state were recounted. So, we Dems have won the last 5 presidential elections and 2 were stolen from us.

difference in turnout numbers for 2004 and 2008 is NOT as great as it should be.

Bush did NOT gain 11 million votes. He should have had 4 million more fundie voters from 2000 and a at least 1 million less GOP voters.

to all the republicans who are saying the vote was stolen this year because of Acorn or whatever, do you believe them too?

Why not?

And I long doubted that Bush and Rove would blatantly steal this election for McCain, as they would risk getting caught. I believe they focused on a senate race or two to keep senate from being filibuster proof and will employ their vote rigging and vote padding tactics when they are less likely to be suspected and detected, 2010 and 2012.

you believe it was stolen from you and they believe it was stolen from them

how does either side advance any cause if we are stuck in victimhood?

get


over


it

YOU think about that and stop equating Acorn apples with Election Fraud Oranges.

it has been proven that the votes were downright stolen.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen

Great source here from a DUer:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Time%20for%20change/383

And just Google election fraud 2004

Essentially what you're saying is that someone else believes the opposite of what we believe -- Therefore we can't be right.

my point is that some people are so wound up fighting the last battle they miss THIS one.

I'm a child of the 60s. We were so intent on getting Nixon (we should have) and proving we were right and being pissed about Vietnam that we forgot to pay attention while the GOP was putting hard right judges in positions of power and systematically taking over this country.

To me its an eyes on the prize issue but for others it is being right.

and if we don't hold our elections in an open and accountable process what does that say about US?

deliberately padded? No word went out to GOP officials to pad the vote, eh? Gahanna was a 'rogue' operation, eh?


Voting System Error Gives Bush Extra Votes in Ohio
November 06, 2004 in print edition A-17
An error with an electronic voting system gave President Bush 3,893 extra votes in suburban Columbus, elections officials said Friday.

Franklin County’s unofficial results had Bush receiving 4,258 votes to Democrat John Kerry’s 260 votes in a precinct in Gahanna. Records show only 638 voters cast ballots in that precinct. Bush’s total should have been recorded as 365, officials said.

Bush won the state by more than 136,000 votes, according to unofficial results, and Kerry conceded the election on Wednesday after saying that 155,000 provisional ballots yet to be counted in Ohio would not change the result.

Deducting the erroneous Bush votes from his total could not change the election’s outcome, and there were no signs of other errors in Ohio’s electronic machines, said Carlo LoParo, spokesman for Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell. Blackwell, a conservative Republican, was co-chairman of Bush’s campaign in the state.

Franklin is the only Ohio county to use Danaher Controls Inc.’s ELECTronic 1242, an older-style touch-screen voting system. Danaher did not immediately return a message.

Sean Greene, research director with the nonpartisan Election Reform Information Project, said that although the glitch appeared minor “that could change if more of these stories start coming out.”

-snip
http://articles.latimes.com/2004/nov/06/nation/na-vote6

"no signs of other errors in Ohio’s electronic machines, said Carlo LoParo, spokesman for Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell."

I simply don't care.

I would like to think that democrats could listen to themselves.

For the last 8 years some of you have been crying about how the election was stolen.

Meanwhile, Obama was out there building a new party with a message that resounds with enough of the electorate to win an election.

Move on or when they come to impeach Obama like they did Clinton you will still be fighting the battles of 2000 or 2004 or the 60s.

care because YOU DON'T CARE.

Every time Dems move on, BushInc gets off. Clinton should have been impeached for PROTECTING GHWBush who should have been impeached, but Dems like you wanted to 'move on' and let Bush and all his cronies get away with all the crimes against the Constitution imaginable.

YOU think about this - if BCCI had been fully exposed the way HONEST Democrats wanted, there would have been no turnover of congress in 1994, no Clinton impeachment, no growing global terror networks, no Bush2 possible, no 9-11 event, and no invasion of Iraq.


Move on, my ass.

we've got the popular vote, let's build on it and stop playing the victim

that is NOT to say we should not fix what is wrong with the process of voting

every second we waste playing the victim, saying they stole it from us, prevents us from moving forward with finding a way to communicate to americans that WE have the plan that is right for this country and moving forward to find the next 1,000 votes that we need to flip one more county blue.

why do YOU pretend otherwise and attack our voices and actions as if they hinder the party?

You want to submit that Obama would have easily won if HE ran in 2004 with McAuliffe's appalling stewardship of the DNC and lack of concern for securing the election process?

when you do not care about voters being forced to stand in line for hours and they did not get to vote. When machines were rigged. When we were fucked over and we have watched 4,191 U.S. Soldiers killed in Iraq because of the lies of this administration.

Obama did not build his campaign alone - he did it with the help of a lot of US.

Move on?

Forget the lies, the deception, the death? That is ridiculous -

It is like saying: Forget the Holocaust.

24 cases out of millions of votes I heard somewhere.

ACORN was about fake registrations. Those were never an issue.

GOP election fraud is a dribs & drabs mixture of techniques that encompass:

== electronic vote flipping -- we all saw some of that going on this time but not as much as 2004
== voter suppression via partisan distribution of voting machines. Too few & old ones to Dem areas.
== voter suppression via challenges at polling places by GOP operatives. Done in 2004 quite a bit.
== voter roll purging -- stopped quite a few of those this time because we were watching
== voter suppression via misdirecting through robocalls and robomail -- tell Dems the voting dates and places have changed. Not directly connected to the GOP.


For a comprehensive overview of the situation. So you'll understand why so many of us take election integrity so seriously:

www.stealingamericathemovie.org for the FREE DOCUMENTARY.

He did not win. There was no machine voter fraud. I'm sure there was massive voter disenfranchisement in Ohio without which Kerry might have won, BUT out of the votes actually cast, Bush won. lets just be honest. He won, and he won by 3 million votes in the popular vote.

It is a frightening truth to face. Appears to be true to me. We'll never really know -- 2004 was very nearly a perfect crime.

But the facts are quite factual, in this case. To broadly say, 'there was no machine fraud' is indefensible, and ignores a great deal.

They stole it.

There was broad electronic fraud in 2004. Please study the reports before you dismiss our declarations. We have read a lot of the material.

Your argument seems to be that exit polls showed a close race and final vote tallies said Kerry won. No big deal. But what you need to do is review the reports about what happened with electronic voting in 2004. Then you will understand more.

YES CITIZENS there was a lot of voter disenfranchisement in 2004. Please review the info on what happened then before you make your declaration. So many of the debunkers just don't bother looking at the hundreds of reports from eyewitnesses and some of the film footage of voter suppression efforts before they proudly proclaim fraud not to be relevant.

Conyers' Report http://www.iwantmyvote.com/lib/downloads/references/hou...
RFK Jr Report http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the...
Calm comprehensive documentary overview http://www.stealingamericathemovie.org /

I am glad more people are not TRYING HARD TO PRETEND ELECTION FRAUD DIDN"T HAPPEN, and are instead trying to make sure that we correct the flaws and be sure we set certain national standards for paper ballots and random audits and allocation of voting machines using non-partisan methods.

IN OHIO ELECTRONIC FRAUD WAS NOT THE MAIN THING but in other areas it certainly was.

Did you come from Freeperville?

No machine voter fraud huh?

http://www.flcv.com/fraudpat.html

I had not realized it. Wow.

I considered Al Gore the last elected President of the United States, until last night.

Get over it. It's over. It's done with. Neither of you can prove your allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. Get. Over. It.

Machines flipping votes, 8 hour lines, purging Democrats from voter rolls - NONE OF THIS IS ACCEPTABLE.

You don't look at past problems and simply say "Get. Over. It." You get off your complacent ass and work to change it. Unless you want to lose your Democracy.

You have anecdotal evidence and manipulated statistics - that's it. Find a true smoking gun - one that would hold up in court - and then people will believe you. Until then - get over it. Both you and Buchanan sound like lunatics, like people that are more bitter about losing than finding out the truth.

Awesome. I'm sure s/he'll just rustle up some depositions & procure some warrants for ya, posthaste. You betcha!

There has been more than ample evidence of things that need to be fixed. As people have pointed out already there HAVE been 'smoking guns', people HAVE been convicted, and it's NOT fixed yet.

That 'get over it' line is one of the worst attitudes possible. It implies that any wrongdoing that has yet to be corrected or brought to justice should just be forgotten. Convenient for criminals and the ethically challenged only.

Nixon requested a recount. It changed very little in Chicago. But they found huge irregularities in the 'burbs. Illinois Republicans got Nixon to cancel his request to stop anyone from looking too heavily at *their* cheating.

The entire premise that Chicago cheats is based on Old Man Daley saying things along the lines of "vote early and vote often" or "get the dead to vote". What people outside Chicago fail to understand, especially Republicans, is that this is only hyperbole for getting out the vote.

This was no different than saying, "I hope we kill the Packers". Nobody believes the speaker** literally wants Chicagoans to murder members of the Green Bay Packers. And nobody should think Old Man Daley was being literal either.

For one thing, he'd have to have been a complete idiot to come right out and say it now, wouldn't have he?


** Okay, there is this one guy I know...

Either way it didn't matter. Kennedy got enough electoral votes that Illinois wasn't a factr.

2000- FL
2004- Ohio
This election was too much of a blowout which totally negated their attempt to steal it.

Information moves at a glacial pace sometimes.

This has to be a high priority.

Nixon stole it in 68 and Raygun in 1980. Poppy also faacked up Dukasis's funding (the latter had a bank account in BCCI)for his campaign. I don't think the public ever really wanted Repugs in power except Ike.

although 2000 obviously was.

I am disappointed.