One reason (Among others) I am convinced Bush really did win.

There are a number of reasons that I believe that Bush genuinely won the election. The main one, for me, is that he showed increase of strength in all states except two. That cannot be done by fraud. It would require too many people in hundreds of precincts to be in the know, and somebody would squeal. If somebody had solid evidence of significant fraud, there would be plenty of Democratic money to reward such a person. A massive fraud involving all the states would require thousands of operatives to pull it off. Something like that would not be a secret. Here is a list of how Bush did in every state, compared to 2000.

We can't move forward until we realize that we DID lose and need to do something about losing.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2004-2000.html

State Bush 2000Gore 2000 Bush 2004 Kerry 2004 Bush Gain
Alabama 56.48 41.57% 62.52% 36.83% Bush + 6.0

Alaska 58.62 27.67% 61.84% 35.04% Bush + 3.1

Arizona 51.02% 44.73% 54.93% 44.47% Bush + 4.0

Arkansas 51.31% 45.86% 54.34% 44.51% Bush + 3.0

Californ 41.65% 53.45% 44.29% 54.56% Bush + 2.6

Colorado 50.75% 42.39% 52.61% 46.16% Bush + 1.9

Connectic 38.44% 55.91% 43.99% 54.29% Bush + 5.6

Delaware 41.90% 54.96% 44.51% 54.34% Bush + 2.6

Florida 48.85% 48.84% 52.22% 46.96% Bush + 3.4

Georgia 54.67% 42.98% 58.05% 41.39% Bush + 3.4

Hawaii 37.46% 55.79% 45.27% 54.01% Bush + 7.8

Idaho 67.17% 27.64% 68.43% 30.31% Bush + 1.3

Illinois 42.58% 54.60% 44.73% 54.65% Bush + 2.2

Indiana 56.65% 41.01% 60.07% 39.16% Bush + 3.4

Iowa 48.22% 48.54% 50.05% 49.11% Bush + 1.8

Kansas 58.04% 37.24% 62.17% 36.47% Bush + 4.1

Kentucky 56.50% 41.37% 59.55% 39.68% Bush + 3.1

Louisian 52.55% 44.88% 56.77% 42.17% Bush + 4.2

Maine 43.97% 49.09% 45.01% 53.04% Bush + 1.0

Maryland 40.18% 56.57% 43.50% 55.35% Bush + 3.0

Massachu 32.50% 59.80% 36.95% 62.11% Bush + 4.5

Michigan 46.15% 51.28% 47.94% 51.10% Bush + 1.8

Minnesota 45.50% 47.90% 47.62% 51.07% Bush + 2.1

Mississ 57.62% 40.70% 59.76% 39.47% Bush + 2.1

Missouri 50.42% 47.08% 53.36% 46.06% Bush + 2.9

Montana 58.44% 33.36% 59.10% 38.56% Bush + 0.7

Nebraska 62.24% 33.25% 66.29% 32.43% Bush + 4.0

Nevada 49.52% 45.98% 50.49% 47.86% Bush + 1.0

New Hamps 48.07% 46.80% 48.98% 50.36% Bush + 0.9

New Jers 40.29% 56.12% 46.47% 52.67% Bush + 6.2

New Mexi 47.85% 47.91% 50.11% 48.76% Bush + 2.3

New York 35.23% 60.21% 40.49% 57.76% Bush + 5.3

N Caroli 56.03% 43.20% 56.13% 43.52% Bush + 0.1

N Dakota 60.66% 33.06% 62.87% 35.49% Bush + 2.2

Ohio 49.97% 46.46% 50.96% 48.57% Bush + 1.0

Oklahoma 60.31% 38.43% 65.58% 34.42% Bush + 5.3

Oregon 46.52% 46.96% 47.32% 51.25% Bush + 0.8

Penns 46.43% 50.60% 48.62% 50.79% Bush + 2.2

Rhode Is 31.91% 60.99% 38.89% 59.56% Bush + 7.0

S Caroli 56.84% 40.90% 58.26% 40.62% Bush + 1.4

S Dakota 60.30% 37.56% 59.91% 38.44% Bush - 0.4

Tenness 51.15% 47.28% 56.83% 42.50% Bush + 5.7

Texas 59.30% 37.98% 61.10% 38.28% Bush + 1.8

Utah 66.83% 26.34% 70.96% 26.50% Bush + 4.1

Vermont 40.70% 50.63% 38.88% 59.14% Bush - 1.8

Virginia 52.47% 44.44% 53.88% 45.24% Bush + 1.4

Washing 44.58% 50.16% 45.72% 52.81% Bush + 1.2

W Virgin 51.92% 45.59% 56.05% 43.25% Bush + 4.1

Wiscon 47.61% 47.83% 49.33% 49.79% Bush + 1.7

Wyoming 67.76% 27.70% 68.98% 29.14% Bush + 1.2

DC 8.95% 85.16% 9.23% 89.32% Bush + 0.3

in republican built voter tabulating machines..

It would require too many people in hundreds of precincts to be in the know, and somebody would squeal.

It can be done at the central server or just by inflating repub precinct totals that no one would recount. It can be done when you figure out how much you need late in the day.

There is not one common machine to be hacked, or even one common type, nor are they on a central network even. Do a Google on the types of voting in the different counties. Some places still have manual counting even.

Whether or not Shrub won the pop. vote, if either Florida or Ohio had gone a different way, we'd be looking at President Kerry. The Berkeley report on Florida Diebold machines is VERY REPUTABLE and very interesting. Have you read it? That's all Diebold country down there.

In Ohio, they just did it the old fashioned way-- didn't put enough machines in Democratic precincts and made them wait 10 hours to vote.

If we don't take the time to get this shit fixed now, regardless of who actually won, why bother to worry about the next election? Your vote won't count then either!

all of which are vulnerable at a certain level. So it takes 5 lines of code, or 100 - it's all too easy, and there are NO safeguards, no backup, no way of verifying that your vote was recorded and counted accurately.

Bush didn't win 2000 and he didn't win 2004.

I mean, there are really a lot of different kinds of voting methods out there. This complicates the job immensely, though it doesn't make it impossible.

Just a few well-placed people here and there in spots not so easily reached by, say, black box hacking, would help bring up the totals for Bush. That's harder than it sounds, because it means bringing in more people, but at the same easier than it sounds if you pick the proper "nodes" to hit. Check out this link and you'll see what I mean:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale-free_network

Whether talking about computer networks, neurons in your brain, proteins in your cells, or people in a society, you'll find the concept of a scale-free network to be your best friend.

On the other hand, Silverhair, we can't dismiss widespread violations of the voting rights act. To deny that could happen is to fly in the face of American history. This is just an informal resurrection of the old Jim Crow laws, which had a strong popular support. And we know they existed.

See that spontaneous uprising against the occupation going on in Fallujah? Same thing. Collective intelligences arise spontaneously whenever you get a collection of people together. And those things definitely have a mind of their own.

(Your job as a human being is to interact dialectically with that intelligence. That means paying respect to it, contributing to it, even merging with it most of the time. On the other hand, it also means pulling away from it and analyzing it critically when you have to. Like the good daughter in King Lear, that's the only way you can pay it respect in a truly honorable way. To really love something means to be willing to suffer for it.)

Goggle Votescam

Good read.

And in many cases, the database is Microsoft Access.

I have Access, and I like it because it writes the SQL code for the user. All one has to do is fill a little grid and relate the tables by using drag-and-drop to connect the keys. Easy!

Access really shines in investigative work. There, one needs to write many queries. Access does the dirty work.

Secret code. No government oversight. Rabidly opposed to auditing standards.

Yep, nothing to be concerned about here. Move along. :eyes:

the vote but the tabulation on a large scale is done to windows desktop machines running the Diebold GEMS software. Each precinct reports to these systems. If it was as unorganized and unnetworked as you say it would take us a lot longer to call the presidency than that night.

Just sitting here at my computer.

They had to do it across the board so that they could get a popular vote "mandate" this time. And it can't be concentrated in one area, otherwise people will notice.

And by the way, there was a post a few days ago about Clinton's presidential wins and how the polls before the election were off by quite a bit. He ending up winning by a lesser percentage than was advertised. However, we are talking about exit polls which are much more accurate than the pre-election polls.

of the appropriate central tabulation systems, that's all it would take.

Wouldn't even have to be a real hacker. Hell, I could do it.

90 seconds for Howard Dean. I didn't watch the chimp clip, but suffice it to say that the outcome speaks for itself.

First, go read the various studies on the elections forums.
Second, I can tell you for sure, without any doubt on my part that Bush did not do better this time than he did in 2000 in Virginia. Somebody screwed with the machines or the tallies. I'm tired of detailing this based on my direct observations but it happened.

I agree that it looks like they pulled out a lot of new voters but so did we.

Take a look at the new study from UC Berkley on Florida alone.

Start with the fact that these guys are crooks and assume that they were clever enough to put together enough votes in enough key areas to give them a cushion. Thats the victory. You really should review the other forums before you accept this bull shit they're handing out.

Did someone tabulate the gains from Gore to Kerry (2000 & 2004 Dem votes). Are gains shown there, too. Because if so, then both sides got more folks voting.

Virginia's population increased so we need to know who showed up and where they're living. I am convinced by pretty reasonable evidence that the turnout for my precinct in VA was bogus. 50% voted by 9:30 AM, constant lines until 7:00 PM w/a lull from 3-4:30. Final % voted was listed at 67%. Bush Shit! I'm going to look into this my self just to satisfy my own curiosity. Unfortunately, the type of forensic analysis statistically required to figure out what happened will take a while and cannot start until there is a reasonably reported data set. Sucks. Fuck *.

is a handful of hackers with IP addresses of central tabulators. They could steal the election from the privacy of their homes in real-time watching results on TV and targeting precincts and states as needed.

The one question that cannot be answered about all of the election anomalies is why did they ALL go in Bush's favor? If it was random computer or human error there would be some balance logically between the candidates but no, everything favors Bush. It's too coincedental and when more votes are counted than voters something is wrong.

From what I have read they were isolated from the net.

results on their site.

<http://www.votepinellas.com/realtime.aspx>

Here's the main site, the above line is listed under What's New:
<http://www.votepinellas.com/>

they are counting on the lack of familiarity with what computers do by the busy, powerful people in our neighborhoods.

the votes are not intercepted on the net.

One computer dials into another computer and the person at the keyboard changes edits the vote server's spreadsheet totals from home.

A computer is programmed to call a series of other computers and drop off a file. There's another program -- it used to be called "Sleep" on earlier PCs -- that does nothing but check frequently for the arrival of a list of filenames.

If one of these files shows up, it triggers another program. (Think of your anti-virus program today, looking for intrusions by files it must act on.)

Depending on the name of the file that showed up, the program could trigger a different number of votes to be added to totals in preselected precincts. Any combination is possible.

If you can work out a series of steps like this, a computer can do them easily and then erase its tracks.

If a computer is not on the Internet, but has a modem hooked up to it so that election officials can dial a phone number, login and upload the vote totals to the tabulator, then even thought it is not on the world wide web, it can still be tampered with. Also, it could be tampered with directly at the terminal itself. This is why the only way to secure a computer is to have it completely offline, no way to dial into it at all, and have it locked securely in a room with no physical access at all.

voting stations at precincts are networked via phone lines in Georgia.



Chapter 183-1-12                                                             Voting Machines – Vote Recorders
b)  Electronic Transmission of Precinct Results to Central Office. 

1. After accumulating all of the vote totals for the precinct, if directed to do so by the election superintendent, the poll manager shall connect the accumulator DRE unit to an analog telephone line and electronically transmit the accumulated vote totals for the precinct to the central office.  The DRE unit shall not be connected to a telephone line during the time while the polls are open.

What the hell, if they are cheating, then so should we!

repub controlled machines, repub info, repub hackers

a conspiracy this vast can possibly not stay quiet.
Amongst the thousands of repug hackers there is bound to be
a few who would brag, or look to acquire notoriety by calling on
some well known news anchor.

I guess we can all stop being paranoidal now, since you've got it pretty much nailed!

By the way, so long as you know all about these things: is it inevitable that these vast conspiracies lose their quietude instantly? I mean, gosh! It's been, what--16 days since the election, so I guess the time limit is less than 16 days. I mean, how could a person who'd been engaged in a felonious enterprise keep quiet about it for 16 days? Can't be done. I mean, jail time's no disincentive to bragging.

Have I got this pretty much right?

I would give it until January inauguration day for things to
surface, and then if nothing does, it is time to to a introspection and how we can change the message to improve dem performance in 2006 and beyond.

I am of the opinion that if something does not work, you don't keep bashing your head against the same wall, you take a realistic hard look at the situation and figure out what will work best.

it would take a handful of people not thousands. also, in case you haven't noticed- It's not STAYING QUIET

counties out there in the country? What about those counties where they still use punched cards such as the one we live in here in Washington state?

Again, my main wish is that we take a good look inside, and figure out what message changes need to be made to attract more moderates. If you don't agree on that then we have a fundamental differance of views.

First, it doesn't really make a bit of difference if you or I are convinced. Neither of us counts for much, since we aren't FBI agents, or prosecutors or elections officials and we don't have national columns in the paper or a show on TV or other mass media exposure. So the idea that the other members should have to spend any time convincing me of anything is pretty silly, and I wouldn't bother them with worrying about what I am, or I am not, convinced of.

Secondly, your post suggests that you may not have taken the time yet to thoroughly review all of the excellent work that DU members have done - and are doing as I write this - on this vital task.

So if you have an interest in this subject then why not take the time to research all of the information that has been made available to us through the generousity, dedication and hard work of the other members?

VOTE FRAUD Links - a DU Compendium
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=201&topic_id=1984#

VOTE FRAUD Links Compendium - Thread #2
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=201x3223


And when he emerges, sometime next week (or month), he can tell us what he thinks then. :evilgrin:

As my dear departed father used to tell me: "Figures don't lie, but liars can figure."

What was the percentage increase of votes for Kerry in those same states?

Not to mention...what is the CORRECT number of votes cast for each candidate???????

it was STOLEN. It was fraud.

All that is left is we must prove it.

I'm prepared to accept that Bush won this thing once all the indications of fraud are followed up on, which is why I'm going back to college. It'll be easier for me to move to Europe and work there with a degree.

Anyone know anything about gay marriage in France? Guess I better google it.

keep trying to slam the idea that it's just too many people to keep quiet? --- especially when there's no proof at all that the vote reconfiguraton was done by more than one person?

1. declare that exit polls are wrong though they've never been wrong until the fascists started stealing the vote

2. imbed story that all the math is wrong and crazy people making up conspiracy theories

3. implant Jeff Fisher story of schools of juvies hacking

4. too many people to keep a secret

5. we'll see soon

I believe that one of the "methods" if you will, that might have been used was to simply purge Democratic voters from the rosters so they would have to fill out provisional ballots.

I live in California and have been voting here for ten years. Low and behold when I showed up on election day, my name was not on the roster. MANY people experienced the same thing in my strongly democratic precinct and that is the FIRST time I've ever seen even ONE person, let alone MANY who were summarily knocked off the roster.

The EXACT same thing happened to my friend in Albuquerque, in another strongly Democratic precinct.

And the EXACT same thing happened to that Wasserman guy in Ohio (the writer/activist).

Does anyone have numbers on how many provisional ballots were cast nationwide? Perhaps the pre-election strategy was to randomly knock as many people as possible (without being too obvious) from the Democratic precinct rosters.

Perhaps once all the provisional ballots are counted nationwide, Kerry's numbers will increase and Bush's percentage will go down. If you follow the numbers on uselectionatlas.org like I do, you would notice that for the past several days, Kerry's nationwide percentage has been edging upward and Bush's downward.

I believe that one of the "methods" if you will, that might have been used was to simply purge Democratic voters from the rosters so they would have to fill out provisional ballots.

I live in California and have been voting here for ten years. Low and behold when I showed up on election day, my name was not on the roster. MANY people experienced the same thing in my strongly democratic precinct and that is the FIRST time I've ever seen even ONE person, let alone MANY who were summarily knocked off the roster.

The EXACT same thing happened to my friend in Albuquerque, in another strongly Democratic precinct.

And the EXACT same thing happened to that Wasserman guy in Ohio (the writer/activist).

Does anyone have numbers on how many provisional ballots were cast nationwide? Perhaps the pre-election strategy was to randomly knock as many people as possible (without being too obvious) from the Democratic precinct rosters.

Perhaps once all the provisional ballots are counted nationwide, Kerry's numbers will increase and Bush's percentage will go down. If you follow the numbers on uselectionatlas.org like I do, you would notice that for the past several days, Kerry's nationwide percentage has been edging upward and Bush's downward.

they used absolutely every trick in the book, squared. THey probably even invented a few just for the occasion.

When the fix is in with the cooperation of the E-voting machines themselves "all things" are possible in an election. You are about the most naive person I have seen in some time. Not trying to hurt your feelings but only calling it as I see it. I remind you that a presidential candidate does not need to "suppress" the vote if he is so confident of an honest win. You are aware of what Bush and Co. did all through the campaign aren't you? Let's hope so for your sake.

It's true that Bush's numbers went up in almost every state, but in many of those states, Kerry outpaced him. The key is to compare the rate at which Bush's percentage changed from 2000 with the rate at which Kerry's percentage changed from Gore's in 2000.

Of the states in which there was a Bush shift, the most notable are
as follows:

Alabama - shift = 10.78%
Tennessee - shift = 10.46%
New Jersey - shift = 9.63%
Hawaii - shift = 9.59%
Oklahoma - shift = 9.28%
Rhode Island - shift = 8.41%
New York - shift = 7.71%
Connecticut - shift = 7.17%
Louisiana - shift = 6.93%
West Virginia - shift = 6.47%
Indiana - shift = 5.27%
Florida - shift = 5.25%
Georgia - shift = 4.97%


Nearly all of the states with the biggest Bush shifts have one of two things in common: 1) They are very close in proximity to the 9/11 attacks or 2) They are Southern states, where Kerry's appeal (not to mention his campaign) was limited.

There were less pronounced Bush shifts in the following states:
Arizona, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, and Utah

The states showing a Kerry shift tend to be more modest. Of these, the notable ones are as follows:

Vermont - shift = 10.33%
Montana - shift = 4.54%
Alaska - shift = 4.15%
DC - shift = 3.88%
Oregon - shift = 3.49%
Maine - shift = 2.91%

There were also modest Kerry gains in states like New Hampshire and Colorado.

Most of the other states didn't really change that much from 2000 to 2004. These include the all-important battleground states of Ohio, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Nevada, and Iowa.

Non-battleground states that didn't change much are North Dakota, South Dakota, California, Idaho, Illinois, Massachusetts, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and Wyoming.

Therefore, given this detailed analysis of the "9/11 states," the "Southern Slam Dunks for Bush," and the states where Kerry gained, it is still perfectly valid to believe there is a pattern of mistabulation and/or fraud with respect to some of the key battleground states.

Did you happen to know that the so-called site, "Real Clear Politics" is a right-leaning site... You may want to look into other sources rather than those that have a right wing slant. You'd be amazed at the information out there. For every site that submits evidence that Bush's win is legitimate there are two others that contest such with information just as relevant as yours.

of a 747, unless they KNEW something? (Even as a joke?) I think this is a clue.

Never forget...

with democratic forces mobilized against him and republicans jumping ship, and nader voters voting democratic...no way. they made up those so-called evangelicals, a smoke and mirror trick for their friend ralph reed, who with any luck, will be indicted very soon.

I cannot believe this is happening! This election is like a bad dream. I cannot believe that these rethugs would attempt this shit again -- it is amazing to me! The fact that they tried this shows just what they think of the American people. They don't give a crap about anyone but themselves -- the end justifies the means. How in the hell do they sleep at night?

I hope all of this evidence proves true and Bush and his boys go down hard. I cannot stand that son of a bitch -- I hope DU reaches the donation goal soon because I am sick of looking at that face!!

about that ugly son of bitch's face.

You stated: "It would require too many people in hundreds of precincts to be in the know, and somebody would squeal."

I've done investigations on numbers manipulation. Investigations that involved hundreds of people to pull it off. We used statistical analysis to point us in the direction of the problems. We would then go in and take statements.

Though at first people didn't squeal out of loyalty to the person they were cheating for, they did complain about odd little things. Things that by themselves didn't indicate fraud but that taken as a whole along with some analysis of the numbers indicated something else was going on.

This is what is happening now. We are getting reports of double counting, missed votes, lost ballots, computer manipulation. Though any one of those things taken by themselves don't indicate fraud (just mistakes or glitches), all of them taken together indicate something is happening. Now the statisticians have analyzed the numbers and something is fishy in Denmark.

When you start showing an interest and asking questions, taking statements, that's when you get the people to start talking and telling their stories. You get them alone and ask them, then they start singing. We are not there yet.

The people who are cheating on behalf of B*sh feel safe right now. They think since so many others cheated right along with them then what they did wasn't really wrong. If everyone (or at least the ones they associate with) is cheating (and possibly getting rewarded for cheating)then it can't be wrong. They may actually believe that what they did wasn't fraud because they are naive, loyal or dumb. They think everyone can see the cheating but no one really cares. It's just how business is done.

If the Repugs are organized enough to get out that many votes (if like you, you assume the votes are real) then why wouldn't they be organized enough to get out and cheat the vote? Are they suddenly moral? Are they too good to cheat for a person they think is God sent?

Let me tell you, if you can organize a group of people to do a job, you can organize a group of people to cheat on the job. I've seen it done.

If you don't mind my asking. You mentioned you did investigations.....on what? Involving who?

top and or political latter climbing like Catherine Harris. Of course! We all have. These people have a lot of money to bribe.

You're focusing on one (important) aspect of the whole election. But you seem to be assuming that EITHER there was fraud on a national scale OR none at all. In reality, the truth is almost always in between somewhere. It's typical of America: it's always either or. you're either pro-life or pro-choice, whereas a wise person would realize that there are in-between zones that are much more reasonable.

That is mind, consider these facts:
- MANY, MANY cases of suspicious or downright illegal behavior occured and are STILL occuring during this election and aftermath. Republicans all over the place have revealed that voter disenfranchisement - especially democratic - has indeed occured on a national scale, although not necessarily in the form of a well-organized conspiracy
- Diebold and ES&S machines have been shown to been flaky, and smaller elections have been clearly stolen on such machines before. The point is, it's EASY to cheat using these machines.
- the people behind the machines are strong Bush-backers
- Bush CHOSE these people to get their machines out there
- the machines from these companies were often placed in the large cities/centers, but were NOT used everywhere, it's true
- the Bush team DID indeed fight a hard campaign.
- nonetheless, disregarding the various explanations from the Republicans, there is strong statistical evidence that seems to favor Bush-slanted fraud. Some of this bias is no doubt explainable - but all of it? I think it's a combinations of things, like almost all things in reality.

With all this in mind, and considering that Bush decided to get as many of these partisan-company machines in there before the election as possible (Help America Vote Act), but also keeping in mind that the voting systems WERE different in different states, as you say, I think that what happened was:

1) planned chaos in the form of setting machines up to appear flaky and choose Bush by default in the case of problems
2) putting less machines in democratic and poor areas, creating longer lineups
3) creating problems for mainly democrats during the registration process
4) various other hurdles, making it difficult for dems to actually get their vote counted
5) some illegal activities all over the place, but constrained enough in scope not to have an obvious effect on a national scale (such as the paper shredding Bev Harris observed in her first stop in FL)
6) finally, I do believe SOME very precisely thought-out and planned machine fraud too place by one or several hackers. After all, if you were a Republican in such a close race, and if you'd set things up in such a way as to have secret voting machines in certain well-chosen locations, with people like Ken Blackwell and your own brother running the show - WOULDN'T YOU USE THE CHANCE to actually cheat, even if just a little? Of course you would, and we have every indication that they set it up to make it possible in the first place. At the same time, of course they have to be somewhat careful and reduce the number of people directly involved to a minimum, so they're going to plan their cheating at critical locations and in ways that are difficult to discover. They would probably be prepared to cheat more or less, as the election results came in. Perhaps when they saw that Kerry was too far ahead, they made some calls, pulled some stops, I don't know. It's too hard to tell - and we KNEW it would be, given the nature of the beast.

So there. I think cheating occured, and all sorts of shenanigans that should by themselves require a national re-vote if you ask me - but mainly a hard-fought campaign that convinced people to vote out of fear of terrorism and fundamentalist Christian "values". I suspect that IF everyone had truly been given the chance to vote - and they weren't, by far - then Kerry would have won even the popular vote, but barely. I'm CERTAIN Kerry would have won the electoral college in any case. And I think the way Bush won was through a combination of dirty campaigning, pre-election dirty tricks, and localized cheating during and after the election itself.

Silverhair,

This is all nonsense. The DREs are responsible for any skewing in favor of Republicans. Use your common sense. The demographics alone will tell you that the Repubs are not gaining in numbers relative to Dems. These machines are built with a skew toward Repubs. This does not require constant patching or hacking though there has been plenty of that and who knows what else. As soon as universal audits are instituted for these machines, all this nonsense about the growth in Repub numbers will be exploded as a myth. The NH recount could start the ball rolling. MN needs to be audited very badly so another Mondale scenario of 02 is not repeated, but every state in the union using the DREs must have laws requiring audits in all elections. At present we do not even have a democracy so there's no sense talking about these figures which are entirely bogus.

stop thinking that B*** won the popular vote, as well. After the 2000 election, the Repubs. weren't going to leave any doubts this time around. This election was stolen on a massive scale. Wherever they could cheat, they did cheat. It's as simple as that, nationwide. Stop giving them the benefit of the doubt. Also, how long do you think, Silverhair, it takes to change the numbers around nationwide? Especially when you have hours to do it.

Bush** and his people was reminded everyday that he lost the popular vote to Gore so you know they would make damn sure to squash that this time. And they succeeded not by simply getting more people to vote for them but by rigging the fucking machines.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

Why not include all the data and show which states Kerry gained over Gore's totals from 2000? Much of Bush's gains are due to the smaller impact of 3rd party candidates having an impact in 2004. Most Buchanan and some Nader voters went for Bush in 2004.

There is one reason Bush won a narrow re-election - and it was a historically narrow win for an incumbent - and that reason was was TERRORISM. He wrapped himself around the issue, he beat it like a drum daily as his people told the idiot voters the he and he alone could protect us. This talk about moral issues is just crap. Shrub won because 3000 people sacrificed their lives unwillingly to pave the way for his re-election. That is what allowed him to pull off the invasion in Iraq. Without this issue Bush loses, period.

It would only take tampering in two states to win the electoral votes and become president. In one, his brother is the governor and republicans control the election. In the ohio, republicans also control the election. With the literally HUNDREDS of complaints of voting problems coming from those two states, can you really say with complete confidence that Bush won those states fairly?

>Arizona 51.02% 44.73% 54.93% 44.47% Bush + 4.0<

Nobody is ever going to tell me that bush "won" the election without me telling the truth about what really happened.

The higher levels of the GOP are common, everyday thugs. They have no sense of respect for minorities, for the poor, for the people who have had traumatic incidents in their lives that caused them to fall off the top rungs of the socioeconomic ladder.

The vote was suppressed. Put everything else aside, the fraud, whatever. That is what put bush on top. Racism. And that's what really makes it so evil: To suppress members of our society in order to suppress other people in the world. It's disgusting.

I don't care what the other spinmeisters say about RealClearPolitics.com.
john i. and tom b.
(We compared the contract prices with polling data collected by a Website called RealClearPolitics.com, which is run by former commodities trader John McIntyre and former advertising executive Tom Bevan. The polls pretty consistently tracked the contract prices. Monday, September 13, 2004 )

( Barrons ...try the goog cache....
The Bush Bounce

The president's rise in the polls appears to be helping the market. Will the market help him?
By JIM MCTAGUE

WALL STREET'S BULLS ARE BEHAVING like a pack of wild elephants. Whenever President George Bush bests Democratic challenger John Kerry in the public opinion polls, the market indexes also bound higher.

"Bush is the candidate the market wants to win," says Bob Farrell, Wall Street's top technical analyst.)

)<<Pretty good at making $$

I don't like these guys AND they are not reporting the holes that are built in to all of the software used for voting.

Didn't want Bush to win, but that doesn't matter. The Democracy of the country is at stake if you don't have a more fair voting system.

Do you own Microsoft O/S? full of holes. If I am good enough...like a disgruntled green party kid or mad at my parents 'cause they won't let me use the car and know they are voting Dem. then I can hack/crack 'em. GEMS, etc is not good enough!!!! got it

Understand, besides voter intimidation and people being disenfranchised again!!...the voting system just plain suxs!!!!!

Oh and BTW there was heard a really loud yell for "Kerry" "Kerry" at the Chicago Merc. before the election when the price of oil backed off.

I am from Texas too partner :> 4 generations and counting

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

This is what we are up against when we push this issue as election fraud. the F word is going to be almost impossible to prove and we face an uphill battle against even our own side. The massive conspiracy label, and the idea that it would be impossible to pull off something like this are killing our ability to gain any momentum with the real story.

There is no way under our current system and the errors that are produced, and the fact that it isn't able to pull out a fair and accurate recount to ensure that all people will have faith in the outcome of elections. The real issue is that we need a system in place that leaves no room for doubt.

We need to push the issue forward in this manner, to show even the Republicans that no vote is safe, when these electronic machines malfunction if they don't receive a steady electrical current. That they count backward because there is bad programming. That they lose votes, because they didn't build warnings and error checking into them. That they don't produce a paper re-countable ballot. We need this to be a non-partisan issue.

There is clear evidence now of the problems these machines create and that argument will overcome the argument presented here by silverhair.

Fraud can be suspected, it can be felt in your gut, there can be lots of circumstantial evidence but it is hard to get people to believe what they consider to be impossible. However, if you show them that there are real identifiable problems backed up with hard evidence, they cannot refute that.

We need to choose our words carefully, lest you forget who champuioned these "machines" in the first place. This fact will not go unnoticed in the MSM

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

His campaign manager in a video told reporters that Bush would win before the election. I saw it, when asked how he could know, Karl Rove answered it is who is counting the votes, so take that one in.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

If you want proof, I assume you must be for audits, because that's the only way you can get proof one way or the other.

I just don't get why anyone would have a problem with trying to make sure votes are being counted fairly. All Americans, no matter what their party affiliation, should want this.

We of course are patriots, not sore losers. But it is hard to respond to you with a straight face. Each time I read one of your posts all I can do is picture a short funny lunatic leprechaun running around in circles with colorful marshmallows floating above him.

Just can't take someone that silly seriously LOL

His smirking chimp face on my TV while the polls were still open.

Early exit polls matching pre-election state polls.

Massive voter suppression in poor/democratic areas of Ohio.

The list goes on and on and on...

My favorite - Every "irregularity" favors Bush. How obvious is that?

The day we all "get over it" is the day democracy dies.

http://2004electiontheft.com

Mark Crispin Miller? Someone.. I think is extremely intelligent, articulate and funny.

SNIP~
Bush & company’s theft of the election was a crime so obvious that it requires more effort to deny than to affirm. This rip-off was as flagrant as the L.A. cops’ assault on Rodney King, Kerry’s stellar soldiering in Vietnam, or Bush’s lousy record in the Texas Air National Guard, and yet this national calamity is being dismissed as a delusion.

The reason for the Busheviks’ denial is as obvious as the theft itself: How better to commit the perfect crime than to insist it never happened?

..To forget or ignore all this and to accept—on faith—the mere say-so of Bush & Company (and our compliant media) is to make clear that you are not a member of what the Busheviks deride as “the reality-based community.” Those who help discredit false reports are doing that community, and this erstwhile democracy, a precious service. But, those who would abort the whole inquiry in the name of science or journalistic probity and “closure” are putting that community, and this nation, at grave risk.

END SNIP~




Much more at..
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1692/

Yet they're the one's fighting for election machinery that can't be auditing, they're the one's fighting to prevent audits, they're the one's trying to make the clock run out (e.g., Blackwell in Ohio, who's trying to prevent a recount by delaying the certification of the vote as long as possible).

...we still somehow honestly failed to elect Kerry...the Left is dead anyway, at least when it comes to Prez. elections. We might as well stop here. Because it will be very, very difficult to achieve such a drive on such a scale a second time. I, for one, will not log dozens of hours for the Dems in four years if they don't insure the votes are counted. I'm sure many others are even more dispirited after this loss, even without regard to the massive irregularities.

But the fact is the irregularities weren't mirages. The poll access problems/"lines" that thousands witneessed, by itself, very likely could have been enough to flip the election in Ohio and cost Kerry untold P votes elsewhere.

Unless we make it clear the election was stolen, there will be no major push on the left in 2008. People who are discounting the election fraud issue are just not getting it. If we let this go, we're done for good--at least for Prez. elections.

Besides, what better way to keep from losing momentum than to take everyone who worked on this campaign and get them to work on the campaign for equal ballot access?

First of all, I have to agree with Silverhair, there are thosands of counties in the country, even just in Ohio and Florida there are hundred counties. Each county operates its own voting machinery. It is hard to believe that a massive conspiracy of this magnitude can be pulled off without someone snitching.

But aside from that, let us assume the election was rigged. If it was done by electronic means without a paper trail, and if it was very cleverly done, we are fucked. There will be no way to prove anything, no way, no how. If the fraud was done at the state level, then we have a chance since the individual county results can be researched.

In the end, we must push for TWO things. One, NO MORE ELECTRONIC voting.
Paper ballots only, along with a paper receipt to each voter.

Two, every voter must be identified with finger print scan and for citizenship. Then and then only our election will said to be accurate.

by exposing the fraud in this election. think about it: if these results are allowed to stand, backed up by *adjusted* exit polls, then why would THE PARTY IN POWER agree to get rid of electronic voting? it seems to serve them well.

that bush made gains in all but 2 states?

Nader was able to get a recount in NH. Funny what can happen when you check the votes again!:

Recount costs Carrara House seat
By WARREN HASTINGS
Concord Bureau



CONCORD — In a recount, Democrat Claudia Chase of Francestown beat out Republican Dario A. Carrara of Greenfield by four votes in the New Hampshire House District 2 election, officials announced.

The original count had Carrara defeating Chase 1,555 to 1,523 votes. The recount recast 36 votes, and showed Chase to be the winner by a 1,523 to 1,519 margin over Carrara.

"There are a number of scenarios that could have caused that to happen, but we think that a number of straight ticket ballots being miscounted is the most likely answer," said Deputy Secretary of State David Scanlan.

No way would they leave it up to chance, these people are too
desperate for power.

Oscar Wilde, who usually hit the nail on the head when it came to
human frailty said: "If a man wrongs you once, it is very likely
he will do so again."

Look, I'm a 6 Sigma Black Belt. My company spent $17,000 to train me on how to collect data and analyze it. And I managed to save them 450,000 dollars annually on the first project I did with my training. Not $450K for one year, $450K for EVERY year! I have looked over the exit poll data, the registration data, and the "actual vote" data. I came to the same conclusion that UC Berkeley came to before they ever published their results. There is DEFINITELY something wrong with the data collection results on Optical Scanners in Ohio and Florida. And it is statistically IMPOSSIBLE that it was "accidental".
Whether the vote can be overturned or not, it was not a legitimate vote. And someone needs to hang for it!

The term “Six Sigma” relates to the number of mathematical defects in a process. Six Sigma practitioners focus on systematically eliminating the defects so they can get as close to “zero defects” as possible. >>looked it up :>

Where have all the scientists gone?

If the media were hearing from Computer Scientists don't you think
they might..i say might... report something?

I knew a guy who worked at IBM once upon a time, but cannot locate him ..or he is hiding out.

Thank you for your comments!

The United (not) States needs more like you AND your
company is lucky to have you.

We are in serious trouble.

:nuke: The house is on fire...we don't need no water....

Good grief

Everyone expected a landslide defeat. Everyone got their hopes up. How now brown cow, can it be so easy for everyone to figure that they were wrong? I'm hardly ever wrong, and this isn't one of those times. There is no way in hell he could have garnered that many votes. And everyone knows it. You can't argue that he must have gotten the votes because that's how many he got. There cannot be such an astronomical coincidence that every single one of the problems favored him, and the fact that it goes against every intuition points to only one thing. Him getting the votes through fraud is the only way this makes sense. Everyone knows it. You know it. Face it.

Yep, he is a lying thieving no good bastard.

"The Bush administration's "fix" of the 2000 election debacle (the
Help America Vote Act) made crooked elections considerably
easier, by foisting paperless electronic voting on states before
the bugs had been worked out or meaningful safeguards could be
installed.

Crying foul this time around isn't just the province of whiny
Democrats. Consider that The Wall Street Journal recently
revealed that "Verified Voting, a group formed by a Stanford
University professor to assess electronic voting, has collected
31,000 reports of election fraud and other problems."

University of Pennsylvania researcher Dr. Steven Freeman, in his
November 2004 paper "The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy," says
that the odds that the discrepancies between predicted poll] results and actual vote counts in Ohio, Florida and
Pennsylvania could have been due to chance or random error are
250 million to 1. "Systematic fraud or mistabulation is a
premature conclusion," writes Freeman, "but the election's
unexplained exit poll discrepancies make it an unavoidable
hypothesis, one that is the responsibility of the media,
academia, polling agencies, and the public to investigate."
Unlike Europe, where citizens count the ballots, in the United
States employees of a highly secretive Republican-leaning
company, ES&S, managed every aspect of the 2004 election. That
included everything from registering voters, printing ballots and
programming voting machines to tabulating votes (often with armed
guards keeping the media and members of the public who wished to
witness the count at bay) and reporting the results, for 60
million voters in 47 states, according to Christopher Bollyn,
writing in American Free Press. Most other votes were counted by
three other firms that are snugly in bed with the GOP. "

http://www.orlandoweekly.com/news/Story.asp?ID=4688