Election 2004, which rings more true?

[Deja Q]

Discuss!

I think it's #3.

[NewHampshireDem]

1. That was the most reading I've ever done

for a DU poll. Congrats? :)

[Deja Q]

2. And I noticed that the text truncated.

:cry:

But the basic points still got through, fortunately.

[lanparty]

3. Add in some weak and ambiguous positions for Kerry ...

Kerry was never able to really distinguish himself from Bush on the war issue. The difference was subtle.

Kerry needed to ATTACK Bush on the basis that the Iraqi people believe they're being colonized. Ergo, we need a NEW leader who could possibly convince Iraqis that there is a policy shift AWAY from stealing their oil to reconstructing their nation the way THEY'D like it!!!

Part of this is handing over a LOT of authority to the UN. The other part is creating a JOING command. Other countries don't want to come in because they don't want to serve under US command.

The other part was certainly to point out that Bush's coalition was weak, OVER and OVER again. It's not a denigration of our allies. It's pointing out an obvious fact that they really didn't contribute that much!!! The large allies that we needed, France, Germany, Japan, Canada wouldn't come in due to Bush's diplomatic ineptitude. No Bush did NOT know these people because he continuously pissed them off!!!

Kerry was was too statesmanlike!!! He needed to tear into Bush more!!!

[Bucky]

4. HypnoToad, you will never work as a headline writer

Brevity is not the soul of your wits, my lad. But still a thought provoking poll

[Deja Q]

6. I don't believe in brevity nor pithiness. In my philosophy,

nothing is black or white, and (generally) nothing should be summed up with very few words. It leaves too much open for misinterpretation.

[idiosyncratic]

5. I think you need another choice because the optical scan

machines seem to be problematic in some of those charts I saw yesterday.

Someone just posted that they only accept certain types of ink and cannot read results made with pens having alcohol-based ink. I don't know if that is true, but some of the other optical scan vs. touch screen results were very suspicious.

------------------------------------

[Deja Q]

7. How would the ink be distributed? Each cubicle has its own pen...

or were pens handed out to suspected non-* supporters?

Still, the chart speaks volumes. How many people would NOT speak up in an exit poll? Politics is such an arrogant game that everybody would extoll their viewpoint.

[idiosyncratic]

13. I read that in NM the Native Americans were given different pens.

It was in another thread, but I don't know about the validity and my absentee ballot didn't tell me to use any particular type of pen . . .

:shrug:

[Laelth]

9. Bingo!

I replied with the same argument, below, before I saw your post.

:toast:

-Laelth

[CornField]

11. While the pen information is interesting

I think in Florida it is much more likely that the totals were flip-flopped... Bush getting Kerry's and Kerry getting Bush's. I don't know why someone in those counties isn't demanding a hand recount.

What do we need to do to get a hand recount in those counties?

[Laelth]

8. It's wasn't the paperless machines they used to steal it.

Looks like it was the optical-scan machines. Poll workers take the paper ballots and feed them into a scanner that's connected to an ordinary PC. Security is basically non-existent. In 90 seconds you can edit the MSExcel database (on the central, vote-tabulation PC) to show whatever election results you want.

Smells like the election was stolen, all right. It just wasn't the paperless machines. It was the optical-scan machines (or so it seems).

-Laelth


Edit:Laelth--for clarity.

[AndyTiedye]

10. Paper Trail Doesn't Help If There's No Recount

WE NEED A RECOUNT!

[Laelth]

12. Nader's working on it in NH.

If he can show that the optical-scan machines used in NH were tampered with (to show an inaccurate count), he may have grounds to contest all the states in which those machines were used.

A little patience ... as Ms. Edwards recommended.

-Laelth

[seraph]

14. Horrible what will happen to the country.