DUERS: YOU MUST SEE WHAT THE ELECTION 2004 FORUM IS ALL ABOUT...

[TruthIsAll]

Many of you still think Bush won the election.

That's because you don't know the facts.
That's because you don't lurk in DU elections.

OUR EVIDENCE VS. THEIR EVIDENCE
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=366974

TO BELIEVE BUSH WON THE ELECTION, YOU MUST ALSO BELIEVE...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x368702

RELUCTANT BUSH RESPONDER (rBr)HYPOTHESIS?
DOWN FOR THE COUNT.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x382581

THE EXIT POLL OPTIMIZER - KEY RESULTS FROM THE MODEL
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x383014

A COMPENDIUM OF EXIT POLL AND SUNDRY LINKS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x377962

[helderheid]

1. Recommended!!!

Thank you TIA!

[dogday]

2. Very Good Information

I saved the page. I am one that still believes how could Zogby, the oddsmakers and the exit polls all be so wrong. Never made sense...

[helderheid]

4. yes - they WEREN'T wrong. SCOTUS handed him 2000 when Gore won

and they made sure they would be the ones counting the votes in 2004

http://velvetrevolution.us/Content/ElectoralReform/Video/Illegit_Election_2004-20-256.mov

"It's all over, the election is over, we won. It's all over but the counting, and we'll take care of the counting." -Rep. King, NY (R) Whitehouse BBQ Summer 2003

[Moochy]

3. Statistics Professor released a Study this week?

This week I read about a statistics PhD working at a major university who just released a report on 2004 irregularities.

Does anyone have a link for that?

[helderheid]

5. I thought that happened a long time ago?

[Moochy]

7. This was not the first one..

Yeah but this was a new study I beleive.

I'll poke around for it and try to answer my own question here :)

(not trying to hijack the thread TIA :) )

[helderheid]

8. hey, whatever keeps the thread kicked, right? :)

[helderheid]

6. this?

http://www.eriposte.com/election04/2004_results_1.htm

[Moochy]

9. No it was...

A publication I think from UIUC, and it was from the Institute for Governmental Affairs on that campus.

I used to work for an IGA at UC Davis, which was why it stood out to me.

(still looking for it, my donor star expired last nite, and I cant search here til an admin reattaches my Belly-Star sneetch.

[TruthIsAll]

26. THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR: RON BAIMAN AT USCV

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x382892

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x382025

[Peace Patriot]

28. Thanks for the link, TIA! And for EVERYTHING!!!

Recommended!

[Moochy]

29. Great link

Awesome! thanks TIA I been looking for good academic pdfs to send to my educated conservative relatives.

I swear I read something this week about IGPA (Institute for Governmental and Public Affairs institute) at UIUC, published by a statistician who analyzed the same subject as this study.

It came to the same conclusions, according to the posters's summary, namely exit polls being so off from election returns.

[Peace Patriot]

27. Yes, it was very recent, and it was a new paper by Dr. Ron Baiman.

Sorry I don't have the link. I was very busy when it went by my eyes--and I thought I could retrieve it later.

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

What we have to do--and what is being done--is peoples' movements at the state/local level, where the power over election systems still resides, and where ordinary people still have some say.

Congress (packed with illegitimately elected Bush "pod people") is NOT going to give us back our right to vote. They FUNDED these non-transparent electronic voting systems, owned and controlled by Bushites in which our votes our counted, using secret, proprietary software (!). And they may do even more harm (I fear a power grab against the states on control of election systems, to head off state/local election reform movements).

1. Paper Ballots and Hand Counts, or
2. AT THE VERY LEAST: Paper BALLOT backup of electronic systems, 5% mandatory audit (automatic recount), and NO PROPRIETARY SOFTWARE. (--in addition to other security measures, such as no internal modems; no wireless, etc.)

Voting is the mechanism of power by which they are denying the will of the majority in this country--which all opinion polls, over a long period of time, has shown to be against the Iraq war, against torture, against looting of Social Security, and against all Bush policy, as well as against Bush himself, in huge numbers--way up in the 60% to 70% range.

WE MUST TAKE BACK OUR RIGHT TO VOTE!

(Note: Lots of bi-partisan corruption around electronic voting. That's what we're up against. It's often the Dems who are the problem. Keep this in mind, the next time some Dem politician gives you a blank stare about Bushites controlling the vote count.)

HAVE FAITH IN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE! If their votes had been counted, Bush would be long gone.

[TruthIsAll]

63. Kick for Peace! n/t

.

[frictionlessO]

10. ERandD agve me my activist wings.

You go TIA!

NGU

[blm]

11. Some think the playing field only needed a different player so they WON'T

see the need to deal with the playing field, itself.

I say that if we, as a party, don't work to expose the machines and the Republican operatives who control them, then it won't matter if you ran Jesus Christ, himself.

[nashville_brook]

13. well said!

[nashville_brook]

12. i am totally amazed when fellow DUers

speak of the need to make our side the "majority." we are the majority and until we have paper ballots (andy's ballots) and clean elections it just isn't going to matter how much canvassing we do. or how much money we raise.

thanks, TIA

[helderheid]

EXACTLY!!

[bobbieinok]

46. AGREE AGREE AGREE

everything else is just a game of 'let's pretend we have real elections'

[ElsewheresDaughter]

14. kick...see graphic

[stellanoir]

15. Our very worst fears manifested

tragically, as Andy and so many others foresaw late on November 2, 2004, around 11pm. It was devasting for all of us yet for no one more than Andy. It was totally rigged.

How the heck can we promote "democracy" when we don't even embody one ourselves? It's completely counterintuitive.

Thanks again TIA. You're the best.

[helderheid]

17. Well, let's do this for Andy

Let's vow not to give up on exposing the stolen election of 2004 and getting rid of these machines. They just switched to Diebold in my state and I was interviewed in the paper saying I would be voting on a paper verifiable absentee ballot.

[stellanoir]

18. good for you helderheid dear

but not to be cynical but what assurance to you have that your absentee vote will actually be counted. I'm sorry to be negative but we need massive election reform. How to get there from here? I'm clueless. I just know that it's absolutely required to ever have anything that resembles a representative legislature again.

Thanks for all your responses yesterday. Hope you're fairing well.

Best

[Eloriel]

31. Absentee voting is just as fraught with problems, tho often a different

sort. They're not even necessarily counted -- and they're certainly not counted if they're thrown away first (and they often are!!).

Absentee isn't an answer, not even short term. NOT UNLESS you can physically be there to see all of them counted -- and have some kind of assurance that they all got collected in one place and none were lost, forgotten, disappeared or simply discarded. And I can't imagine what that would take (incarceration of the ballots in the county jail, under constant citizen surveillance?).

[helderheid]

34. None. However, imagine if we had a large enough campaign

in those states with e-voting machines that it would be a protest vote - imagine if when it came time to "count" the votes, there were more absentee paper ballot votes than not? What kind of message would that send as far as the people no longer trusting their votes are being counted and that they absolutely don't trust the machines? See where I'm going with this - even if my vote isn't counted properly, I have just as good a chance on a paper verifiable absentee ballot than I do a vapor one.

[katinmn]

16. Thank you, TIA

I admire your dedication.

We might not be right there with you all the time, but there will come a time when progressives will be scrambling for all the information you have assembled, written, analyzed and saved.

People probably aren't paying enough attention but there are so many outrageous things going on it steals the focus away fom election reform.

We have to remember that the only way to clean up ALL of the outrageous problems is through election reform, and media reform, too, of course.

What is the status of national legislation relating to elections? Could someone post that in the Activists Headquarters? Stuff stays up there a long time. It would help keep election reform more visible.

[KelleyKramer]

19. I saw something where every error was..

Dont have a link, but it was an article not long after the election that reviewed all the errors and screwups, and in almost every single case it favored Bush and/or hurt Kerry.

Oh, and thanks for the linkage, lots of good info there!

[kster]

20. kick.nt

[Melissa G]

21. Kickin' for truth! n/t

[in_cog_ni_to]

22. Thanks TIA! I love your work

and truly appreciate what you do.

I have NEVER thought Bush won the election.

I have bookmarked ALL of your threads! :hi:

Thank You!

[Tigress DEM]

23. Reading "What Went Wrong in Ohio"

What can be done to Ken Blackwell in retrospect for NOT doing his job as Secretary of State because he was not just "too busy" doing his job as Bush's campaign manager in Ohio - which would have been enough to scream "conflict of interest" but was actively NOT doing his job by making it HARDER for CERTAIN people to vote.. or failing that he was actively EMITTING UNINTELLIGABLE BLATHER that made actually counting valid voters ballots nearly IMPOSSIBLE.

THEN when he was confronted and given the chance to actually perform his own investigation which should show how this is all a simple "misunderstanding" and "of course he didn't outright STEAL the election for Bush" all he did was refuse to show up to court or Congressional Hearings.

HOW DID BLACKWELL get away with it?

CAN'T he be RECALLED or something?

I mean if an average Joe Citizen gets enough parking tickets there will be a warrant issued for their arrest due to non-payment. I think Ken owes America a hefty fine and some jail time. Don't you?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

24. When one whole forum isn't enough...

:eyes:

[Moochy]

33. oof

Yeah elections dont matter. :sarcasm: one can always ignore TIA, or just be snarky. To each his own.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

37. I prefer to do both. n/t

[annabanana]

25. kickety kick!..... this'll help the newbies get

up. to. speed.

[Gay Green]

30. EXIT POLLS DON'T LIE!!!!!

Less reliable ones were used by the BA2 With -w- In Tow to pressure Ukraine into a revote -- as if the Ukranians weren't capable of managing their own internal affairs.

[TruthIsAll]

99. The naysayers claim that Gore 2000 voters lied to the exit pollsters

and said they voted for Bush. Either that, or they forgot they voted for Gore and said Bush.

That shows you the how weak their case is.

[Eloriel]

32. Hey, everyone. HUGE Props to TruthIsAll who has been a bulldog

on this issue. He should write several books, compiling all the info he has (almost singlehandedly) ferreted out. Every hat I've ever owned off to TIA!!

:toast:

:bounce:

:loveya:

[Helga Scow Stern]

54. I agree! And to you, Eloriel!

Your massive compendiums in the beginning were what kept me going and were what I referred everyone to who was the least bit awake right after the big heist happened.

[tiptoe]

35. kick!...election fraudsters subverted our American democracy in 2004 n/t

[helderheid]

36. welcome to DU!

[kittykitty]

38. Add this xlnt link : "Something Rotten in Ohio" by Gore Vidal

"Something Rotten in Ohio" by Gore Vidal
http://www.alternet.org/story/22222

[helderheid]

39. I hadn't seen that one before

though this one is a good read too:

A Corrupted Election
Despite what you may have heard, the exit polls were right
By Steve Freeman and Josh Mitteldorf

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1970/

[helderheid]

44. just read it - WOW!!!

thanks!!

[tommcintyre]

40. VOTE TO PUT THE ELECTION FORUM BACK ON THE MAIN PAGE

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4017670

[senseandsensibility]

41. Yes please vote if you haven't

This issue must be prominent as we head towards the 2006 elections. It's not "old" news. We meed to keep investigating, and pushing for fair elections in 2006. The DU 2004 elections results forum can serve that purpose. Also, some DUers are not educated yet, and they need access to this forum.

[loudsue]

94. Oooops! The "You've Already Voted" police told me to forget it...

:shrug: What's a 2004 Election Forum addict to do??


TIA .... :yourock:


:kick::kick::kick:

[tiptoe]

42. TIA & kickers, help DU visitors find Election 2004 Forum w 'Yes' here...

Should the 2004 Election Forum be placed back on the main forum page? (Poll)



"IF DA PEOPLE BE DENIED DA POLLING PLACE, GIT DA POLLING PLACE TO DA PEOPLE!"

:)

[johnaries]

43. For those of you who aren't familiar with TIA's work,

TIA has been doing INCREDIBLE research ever since November 3, 2004.

Many playing "Devil's Advocate" have questioned his work and tried to find flaws. The very few flaws and miscalculations that were found (mostly by TIA himself) he immediately corrected, and the corrections did not change his conclusions.

TIA has successfully defended his conclusions consistently.

Once again, Great Work, TIA! :applause:

Oh, yeah, and KICK!

[foo_bar]

64. it is "incredible", as in "not credible"

When you throw out data that doesn't support your preordained conclusion, you get something like this:

That's why I stick with Zogby and ARG, etc. I've stopped blindly incoporating the latest poll that Votemaster puts up - unless t makes sense. Call me a cherry-picker. I throw away the bad ones. That's why my numbers seem so far out there for Kerry.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1039319#1041539

No, I leave them out because they are BIASED for Bush.
Why include them if they skew the averages against Kerry?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1998204#1998844

Survey-USA?
Gallup?
Strategic Vision?
Mason-Dixon?

Trust Zogby. Trust ARG.

Don't be bamboozled by Repub pollsters.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1022265

There has been misinformation put out by a number of sources
(AP, MSNBC, FOX, CNN) regarding Kerry's current poll numbers
and his prospects of winning.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2060158

I have also used this method to calculate the probability that
1- at least 15 JFK witnesses would meet unnatural deaths in the year following the assasination.
2- at least 16 world-class microbiologists would meet unnatural deaths in a 4 month period following 9/11.
3- The probability that at least a certain number of people would suffer from mad cows disease in a specific geographic area in a given year.

In each case, the probabilities were close to zero.

In the 2002 election, the odds are less than 1 out of 43,000 that the results were due to chance.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1777401#1777492

[johnaries]

68. Excuse me, but he was CORRECT!

Different pollsters use different methodologies, and Zogby's is the most accurate methodology.

Perhaos you would rather he use Ramussen? They were the only one's who "got it right". However, Rasmussen is Republican-owned and their polling results are CONSISTENTLY skewed. Their methodology also uses automated phone surveys, in which there is no way to verify that they are even talking to an adult.

Also, consider that many Statisticians have independently come to similar conclusions. And many of the same "explanations" that TIA has debunked have also been debunked independently by other experts.

Sorry, foo-bar, but your post is also fubar'ed.

[foo_bar]

69. Zogby the internet pollster?

Prof. Sam Wang nailed the election to a T:
http://synapse.princeton.edu/~sam/pollcalc.html

Here's TIA speaking highly of Prof. Sam Wang's work, before the Professor's analysis departed from TIA's foreordained conclusion:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2383790#2383798

(edited for missing apostrophe)

[TruthIsAll]

71. FOO, yet you agree that the election was stolen and Kerry won...

Therefore, you must also agree with my election model projection (Kerry 51.63-51.80% of the 2-party vote), my exit poll analysis (Kerry 51.80% of the total vote), along with my optimizer (Kerry 52.16% of the 2-party vote, 51.63% of the total vote).

So, what you are saying, foo, is this:
1) That Kerry won and Wang was correct in predicting a Bush win.
2) That Kerry won and I was wrong in predicting Kerry would win.

Foo, WTF?

How does it feel?
To be on your own
Like a rolling stone...

In a world of contradiction...

Great, Foo,Keep recalling my threads from the archives.They will show I have been consistent.You are anything but consistent, except in your unending attempts to naysay my analysis.

Each time you post, you are exposed as a very confused, tortured soul.

[foo_bar]

73. when in doubt, attack a strawman

yet you agree that the election was stolen and Kerry won

Not at all: Kerry lost the election by 251 electoral votes to 286; that's how presidents are chosen in our system. Kerry should have won, if millions of disenfranchised voters were allowed to vote (people who didn't show up on exit polls, to wit).

Electors used to be chosen by state legislatures, but all 50 states decided to grant the illusion of democracy to its citizens ("illusion" because of Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004 etc., and the living re-enactment of the 3/5th Compromise by suppressing minority votes in former slave-holding territories).

Therefore, you must also agree with my election model projection (Kerry 51.63-51.80% of the 2-party vote), my exit poll analysis (Kerry 51.80% of the total vote), along with my optimizer (Kerry 52.16% of the 2-party vote, 51.63% of the total vote).

That's your crucible of faith, not mine. You can only achieve this result by cherrypicking the Mitofsky data you like, to the exclusion of the Mitofsky data you don't like.

So, what you are saying, foo, is this:
1) That Kerry won and Wang was correct in predicting a Bush win.
2) That Kerry won and I was wrong in predicting Kerry would win.

More strawmen:

1) I never said Kerry "won" (because he didn't, whether or not he should have).
2) Since you dropped every poll with Bush in the lead, your "99.94%" predictions were garbage-in-garbage-out, as documented above.

Each time you post, you are exposed as a very confused, tortured soul.

Ad hominems are the hallmark of a dying argument. Projection merely demonstrates a lack of self-awareness.

[TruthIsAll]

75. You have not refuted a single number.

Be specific.
Show where I cherry-pick.
Look at the optimizer.
Look at the National Exit Poll.
Look at the state exit polls.

You never said the election was stolen?
You sure did.
What did you mean by stolen, if not that Kerry won?

Oh, it was just the disenfranchised voters.
Then do the math.
Show us the numbers where the disenfranchised made the difference?

According to you, there were:
No touchscreens switching votes.
No optiscan miscounts.
No central tabulator miscounts.
No long lines.
No missing/overpunched cards.

You have nothing to say.
86 of 88.

[foo_bar]

76. "numbers don't lie", unless they showed a Bush lead

Show where I cherry-pick

I just did, four posts above yours:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4057474&mesg_id=4062833

You never said the election was stolen? What did you mean by stolen, if not that Kerry won?

"Bush stole the election" != "Kerry won". I can draw you a Venn diagram to that effect, lest you think President Kerry defeated President Gore in 2004.

"The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function."
- F. Scott Fitzgerald

[johnaries]

79. That was PRE-ELECTION! He's talking about the Exit Polls!

Look at his Exit Poll analysis and tell us all where he "cherry-picked".

And what's with the "lest you think Kerry defeated Gore"? You are REALLY reaching. And in case you weren't aware, the Miami Trib's independent research proved that Gore won in 2000.

[foo_bar]

84. what did Gore win, precisely?

He won the popular vote. He would have won the Presidency, if the people of Florida had any say in their choice of Electors (or if the Supreme Court believed its own propaganda about "states rights" (or if the Electors weren't partisan hacks, like the founding fathers envisioned)).

Look at his Exit Poll analysis and tell us all where he "cherry-picked".

The foundational assumption in all of this is that the preliminary n=13047 exit poll supercedes the final n=13660 weighted poll:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x373187
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x362208

So the E-M of 12:20am should be believed with unwavering certainty, but their final weighted poll should be disregarded. See "How to Lie With Statistics I":
http://www.tufts.edu/~dtybor01/2005Feb17.html

[johnaries]

88. Sorry, it was the Herald, not the Trib.

Candidate Outcomes Based on Potential Recounts in Florida Presidential Election 2000

Review Method : Winner
Review of All Ballots Statewide (never undertaken)
• Standard as set by each county Canvassing Board during their survey : Gore by 171
• Fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots : Gore by 115
• Any dimples or optical mark : Gore by 107
• One corner of chad detached or optical mark : Gore by 60

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2000

And BTW, I know how to lie with statistics and tell the truth with statistics. I am a Six Sigma Black Belt.

[johnaries]

77. This is a red herring. You're going back to pre-election polls.

TIA's post-election research is on EXIT polls.

Here's the bottom line - The vast majority of the Exit Poll Analysis has been working from the assumption that the Elections were correct,and therefore has tried to explain what was wrong with the Exit Polling. The results have been mixed and dubious. No good explanation has been offered that hasn't been debunked.

For instance, the "soccer mom" theory said that women were disproportionately polled, and that skewed the polls toward Kerry. However, it also says that Bush won because many soccer moms became security moms and voted for Bush. A self-contradictory theory.

Then there's the Reluctant Bush Responder theory - that Kerry voters were more likely to allow respond than Bush voters. However, the response tended to be BETTER in Bush supporting districts.

So, when you assume that the Election Polls were correct and the Exit Polls were wrong, there is no good explanation.

However, as TIA shows, if you work from the assumption that the Election Polls were wrong and the Exit Polls were correct, everything falls into place.

ESPECIALLY when you consider the issues with the Election polls that are currently being investigated.

[TruthIsAll]

78. The pre-election polls I used in my models had Kerry the winner.

1-Both the state Monte Carlo electoral vote simulation model and National Model had Kerry winning 51.63-51.80% of the 2-party vote:
http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/

2-The 12:22am state and National (13047 respondents) exit poll analysis (50.80% total vote) matched the projection models:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x362208

3-The exit poll optimizer (51.63% total vote) matched the state & National Exit Polls:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x383014

[johnaries]

81. This site also predicted a Kerry win

http://www.electoral-vote.com/2004/pred/index.html
although by a slightly lower margin.
It was based on a number of national polls.

My point is that foo-bar is attacking the results of your Exit Poll analysis by trying to attack your methodology in analyzing pre-election polling. And the 2 have nothing to do with each other. He's just reaching for straws.

[TruthIsAll]

82. john, that's all he has ever done: reach for strawmen and attempt

to bad-mouth my analysis - without ever being able to find even one error in the numbers.

He wouldn't know where to begin in writing an analytical model. He probably doesn't even understand the logical basis of any of my models, including the Monte Carlo simulator and the non-linear optimizer. That's why he won't comment on them, because he doesn't know squat about constrained optimization, goal-seeking and genetic algorithms.

I don't know what possesses him. His arguments are always farcical- as he has shown once again on this thread.

I say let him wallow in his self-induced fantasies.

[johnaries]

85. That's a good idea. I'll just ignore him rather than let myself

get sucked into ridiculous arguments. I just hated to see your excellent work get such ridiculous criticism.
:toast:

[foo_bar]

87. "strawmen" have nothing to do with "grasping for straws"

A strawman is a reference to the farmer's effigy; in debate it refers to creating a sham argument that's easier to disprove than the actual argument.

without ever being able to find even one error in the numbers

The numbers are fine (Excel doesn't make computation errors, except on early Pentium 3's). It's the garbage-in-garbage-out assumptions, as plenty of people have tried to explain to no avail:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=742249#742476

That's why he won't comment on it, because he doesn't know squat about constrained optimization, goal-seeking and genetic algorithms.

I'll leave the constrained optimizations to Bruce O'Dell, but I've never seen anything approaching a genetic algorithm in the CherryPicker2000. Words mean things; misapplying technical jargon without actually employing it is known as the "fallacy of blinding with science":

The fallacy of blinding with science specializes in the use of technical jargon to deceive the audience into supposing that utterances of a scientific nature are being made, and that objective experimental evidence supports them.

http://www.adamsmith.org/logicalfallacies/000601.php

[autorank]

90. foo bar...Do you do this to get attention? You're able to do your own

threads, yet you show up whenever TIA posts. It's really strange. I mean, if you don't like the work, why come around and be so, well, invasive.

I really don't want an answer from you. This is a rhetorical question but it needs to be asked.

Do people show up on your ERD threads and say all sorts of weird stuff? I've never noticed that. In fact, I stay away from the threads.

Give it a break.

[foo_bar]

92. that about sums up the 2k4ERD forum

I really don't want an answer from you.

[TruthIsAll]

104. "that about sums up the 2k4ERD forum"? Then why don't you just go away?

You contribute nothing of value. Your postings have been nothing more than an unending series of personal attacks. I can prove it.
DUers just have to search for your posts in the archives.

You have left a track record which you cannot hide from.

[foo_bar]

105. (two days later...)

Then why don't you just go away?

Because I was raised (by Quakers, but that's for another day) to stand up to bullies. I'm also unmoved when "friendly experts" spend their day herding people into unfalsifiable orthodoxies:

and in TIA, Amaryllis, MelissaG, garybeck, bleever, LandShark,Wlms,tommacintyre ... from thence they shall come to judge the thick and the febble

Oops, that's the problem with creeds.

Your postings have been nothing more than an unending series of personal attacks.

Do you remember which one of us was tombstoned from DU, specifically for personal attacks?

I can prove it.
DUers just have to search for your posts in the archives.

If you can prove it, why do "DUers just have to search" for it?

If I've said anything in error, please let me know (besides my awful election prediction, which still came 30 EVs closer than the aforementioned cherrypicked model)

[TruthIsAll]

106. Oh, so you are standing up to big bully TIA? So sad. So pathetic.

"If I've said anything in error, please let me know (besides my awful election prediction, which still came 30 EVs closer than the aforementioned cherrypicked model".

You show your supreme ignorance by calling it cherry-picking.

Yes I chose to use certain polls (ARG, Zogby, etc.) in my model and avoid others which I believed to be biased In favor of Bush. That was MY decision. Who the hell are you to tell me how to design the model? I used those polsters who I believed to be creditable - and my projections were right on the mark:

Kerry by 51.6-51.8% of the 2-party vote.


Now, lets here about your model.

Also, Foo, what was the final take-away from that EIRS reconciliation project of yours? Can you give us a synopsis in 3 sentences? All of your research failed to rebut the fact that 86 of 88 documented touch screens incidents turned Kerry votes to Bush votes. ONE in 79 sextillion ODDS.

All you did was throw fog on a very simple result under the guise of a psuedo-sophisticated database resarch project.

OK, THEN SUM IT UP.
WHAT IS THE RESULT OF ALL THAT RESEARCH?
JUST THREE SENTENCES.

LET'S HEAR ABOUT YOUR ASSUMPTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS.
DUERS ARE WAITING, MR. FOG.

LET'S SEE WHAT YOU HAVE TO OFFER BESIDES YOUR SNARKY AD-HOMINEMS.

[foo_bar]

107. to speak of snarky ad-hominem

DUERS ARE WAITING, MR. FOG.

TruthIsAll, heal thyself.

JUST THREE SENTENCES

I forwarded the results to VerifiedVoting ([e-mail]). It was grunt work for its own sake, not to "rally the troops" or ostracize heretics.

LET'S HEAR ABOUT YOUR ASSUMPTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS.

I extended a personal invitation to that effect here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x369374#378372

All of your research failed to rebut the fact that 86 of 88 documented touch screens incidents turned Kerry votes to Bush votes.

In your words: "mgr, I amend my previous reply (87-94); Mea culpa. You said 88 of 95":
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x369374#378028

ONE in 79 sextillion ODDS.

This is debunked here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x369374#378249

Also debunked in its original form, seven months earlier:

This is a good analysis. but there is a flaw. A binomial distribution is obtained as the sum of independent bernoulli trials with an equal probability of "success". In this case, your value of .5 is the probability of success. The flaw (actually two flaws) are:

1. If any discrepancies happened on the same machine, one cannot assume independence.
2. Similarly, as the probability of discrepancies probably varied between machines, one cannot assume equal probabilities of success.

So, the actual model is more complex than a simple binomial.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=117559#117635

[TruthIsAll]

108. TELL US: HOW MANY OF THE TOUCH SCREENS WERE NOT INDEPENDENT EVENTS...

"1. If any discrepancies happened on the same machine, one cannot assume independence.
2. Similarly, as the probability of discrepancies probably varied between machines, one cannot assume equal probabilities of success".
So, the actual model is more complex than a simple binomial".

FOO-BAR, PROVE THE TOUCHSCREEN INCIDENTS WERE NOT INDEPENDENT EVENTS.

And you are quibbling about the numbers.
87 of 94.
86 of 88.
What the hell is the difference?
The probabilities are beyond comprehension in either case.

WHERE ARE THOSE THREE SENTENCES SUMMARIZING YOUR WORK?

[foo_bar]

109. the burden of proof is on the person making the incredible claim

FOO-BAR, PROVE THE TOUCHSCREEN INCIDENTS WERE NOT INDEPENDENT EVENTS.

Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

What you're proposing runs counter to elementary statistics, so the burden's on you to establish that binomial distributions apply to non-fixed (the # of incidents in EIRS just went up to 42733, from 42698 in June), statistically dependent observations with more than two outcomes, for which the probability of success isn't the same for each outcome.

WHERE ARE THOSE THREE SENTENCES SUMMARIZING YOUR WORK?

Right here, under "THREE SENTENCES":
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4057474&mesg_id=4081153

[faithnotgreed]

45. big kick for democracy

[The Jacobin]

47. They stole this fair and square

Here's what I mean:
We will NEVER get any traction on the line "Bush stole the election" or "Selected not Elected."

It doesn't matter anymore. It's over. It won't be changed. So drop it. If you keep pushing this line, you will be completely marginalized in the MSM.

What needs to happen now is a push for election reforms. A rational and evenhanded approach that acknowledges that both Democrats and Republicans (and many local politicians in non-partisan elections) have rigged elections in the past. What we have now with the change in voting technology is to prevent all kinds of election fraud in the future.

And this has to happen quickly. We have to pummel state officials with arguments like "accountability" and "integrity." It will be very difficult to withstand pressure like that.

Moaning about the past will only ensure that those reasonable politicians who might do something about this will see us as conspiracy kooks and do absolutely nothing -- the worst outcome.

[TruthIsAll]

48. "Conspiracy kooks"? YOU drop it! YOU stop moaning!

You say:
"And this has to happen quickly. We have to pummel state officials with arguments like "accountability" and "integrity." It will be very difficult to withstand pressure like that".

Why don't you tell us something we don't know?
Well, we have been doing just that - and much more.

What the hell have YOU been doing, Jacobin?
Still fighting the French Revolution?

[The Jacobin]

49. Calm down.

Calm down.

God, Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

If you go flying off yelling about a stolen election in 2000 you are wasting your time. There is nothing you can do about that.

The only thing that can be done is to prevent future stolen elections. Making reasonable, moderate arguments that appeal to reasonable, moderate Republicans (who -- may I remind you -- are in majorities in many of the state legislatures) is the only thing that will change this mess for the future.

Remember, most people don't think the elections were stolen and no matter how much evidence you present -- they won't believe it.

Fait accompli.

So what have I done about it? Given to blackboxvoting and to the state and national Democratic parties to get the majorities changed.

[autorank]

58. Election 2000/Election 2004/Election 2006/Election 2008/End of World

I agree that state and local election authorities have to be hounded and now! It needs to be relentless and systematic. It also needs to be informed. Take a look at the DNC report on Ohio (it's a buried PDF on their new web site...looks like DU...haha).

At any rate, there is a reason 2000 and 2004 matter. We fought 2000 but on the wrong issue, no blame there because only two people enunciated the true crime, and it was a crime: Alan Dershowitz and Jesse Jackson. It was a race crime. FL took a bum purge program that the vendor warned would disenfranchise thousands of citizens. Guess what? It did, 50,000 black Floridians! It cost us the election. It was done deliberately. It was the crime of the century. There is no statute of limitations. We let it drop even after the damn state of Florida agreed to a consent decree admitting everything a couple of years after the crime (did you ever hear our glorious leaders talk about that...A STOLEN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION WITH A DAMN SOFTWARE TRICK BY THE PRESIDENT'S BROTHER).

I'm not going into 2004 but if you look at TIA's stuff and other independent mathematicians, you will see that the high level analysis, the stats, match the on-the-ground experience in OH, FL, NM and other states. THEY SCREWED US ROYALLY.

Now, since we agree on going after the officials now, here is my friendly reminder: we need to know how they do it, where they're likely to do it, with whom and so forth; we need to study 2000 and 2004 as crimes, which they were; we need to 'hook' the public, which is largely ready to believe this btw given their distaste for * with these facts; and we need to stop...we being the Democratic Party...being such total, pathetic wimps when people walk all over us.


That's how we do it, tell the glaring, ugly truth; Bush stole two elections. Study it in a way that allows us to shine a bright light on the 2006/2008 elections in order to make further theft extremely difficult. And we need to "catch the wave" of massive Bush discontent. Let's marry the massive dissatisfaction with Bush and the publics need to find an excuse for his disasters with the stolen election. It both sells and it's the truth.
:hi:

[PATRICK]

50. Worst line "marginalized in the MSM"

We are dealing with the MSM too as part of the problem, not as a reason to dance around the issue.

As far as pounding the local politicians, you are absolutely correct and equally, according to you advice, over the top.

Their ignorance is proving as resilient as their gullibility to salespeople from problem companies. Some of it is wink and nod willful from GOP and organizational types who "don't want to know" what is going on in the smoothly quiet and organized ballot concentration camps.


Anyone that can get traction anywhere has to try and not be discouraged by others thinking their way will break down this rush to democratic extinction.

Questioning and the ominous undercurrent of growing certitude that the election was stolen(unless you disagree with that) lends force to the argument and urgency. Other than that it is a two sided "choice" argument of paper trail or no granting legitimacy to both sides.

The truth is we can't provide the lost evidence of ruined balloting but
why be the only ones pained by the truth? Calm rationality is amazingly stupid as I watch place after place toying with and implacing the machines with some modest safeguards maybe, not knowing at all how BIG the problem actually is. How playing with computer voting is playing with fascist dynamite and the myths too many are allowed to live are blinding us to worse to come.

You might as well let the traction competition progress. We'll need all the pounding from every direction to win, unless one thinks granting one delusion(Bush and GOP fairly "won") will help dispel resistance to reform.

[Endangered Specie]

51. I dont doubt they did dirty tricks and assorted nastiness...

I doubt it was enough to steal the election, and I dont put weight in exit polls.

[The Jacobin]

52. Oh Lord.

Did you actually read the links in the main message?

To Patrick and TruthIsAll:
Here is evidence right here on DU that making the "stolen argument" is a very difficult (and I think very damaging) argument.

[TruthIsAll]

55. Why don't you cite the many who have come to believe in fraud...

when they saw the evidence posted on the 2004 Election Forum?

They sure didn't see it on CBSABCMSNBCFOXCNNNYTWP.

Are you aware that the percentage who believe the election was stolen was 20% in Nov. 2004 and is approching 50% today? Why do you think that happened?

It's only the belief that the election was stolen which can motivate us and provide the catalyst for the activism needed to fix the problem by installing verifiable paper ballots, among other things.

To say there wasn't enough fraud to turn the election, or that they all do it, is pure unadulterated BS.

The election WAS stolen in 2004.
The election WAS stolen in 2002.
The election WAS stolen in 2000.

What did you say in 2000?
Get over it; work harder next time?

What did you say in 2002?
Get over it; work harder next time?

What are you saying in 2004?
Get over it; work harder next time?

[TruthIsAll]

102. 90% of DUers believe it was stolen. That's very damaging to...

/

[autorank]

59. That's totally uninformed and a recipe for disaster.

Is this like not believing in "therapy" or not believing in "ghosts."

Exit polls are used all over the world to monitor elections. They have an accuracy rate that was approaching 0.04% in this country until the last election.

Did you know that all the exit polls on election day showed Kerry up 51-48 until the final poll. Oh, the final poll wasn't really a poll, it was an adjustment of the previous true polls made to show the result of the "final" poll conforming to the vote count. The only reason we have the earlier true polls is due to a patriotic somebody at the networks who released them. They WERE NOT MEANT TO BE SEEN.

Please wake up because the sleep of reason gives birth to monsters, i.e., *

[lovuian]

53. Great Infor the Numbers don't lie!!!

Statistics is numbers and they stole the election by numbers

and now we know their power don't we!!!

its not the person putting the ballot in the box

its the Numbers on the tabulation sheet which has more POWER!!!

[Al-CIAda]

56. .

[Zorra]

57. Really? Some DUers really believe Bu*h won the election?

To those DUers:

I have this bridge, and I'm selling it, well, really cheap, and it's on some property I own, about 159 due west of San Francisco, which I'm also selling really cheap...no, honest, this is the bargain of the century....

[autorank]

60. You can't sell that, the bridge belongs to me. KOS is filled w/Dems

who think you have problems with, in their exact terms, "mental hygeine" if you think Bush stole the election.

I think 100 members of the general public, randomly selected from any major metropolitan phone book, would know more about election fraud than the majority of DKOS and the DNC.

Now, about our contested property...

[TruthIsAll]

62. Let's do a POLL to see how many at DU believe the election was stolen.

Right after this post.

[EFerrari]

61. I hear it's hard to insure out there. No matter I'll just

work a little harder to close the deal. :)

They stole it.

[leftchick]

65. kick

I know all this so I am kicking for the folks who have never been to the Election Forum. Lots of stuff that will piss you off!!

[TruthIsAll]

66. A reminder for those who missed it.... n/t

/

[Unforgiven]

67. Kick!

[Mnemosyne]

70. Hi TIA, thank you again! This needs a..

:kick: :kick: :kick:

[helderheid]

72. kick

[tommcintyre]

74. kick n/t

[mod mom]

80. Also for those of you unfamiliar w ER forum we are tying Coingate to the

election:

Tom Noe is under federal investigation regarding the loss of $ 12 million rare coins from the $ 50 million dollar investment by the Ohio Bureau of Workmens Comp (BWC).Bernadette Noe and Tom Noe both have links to the Lucas County BOE. Ms Noe was Chairperson of the Lucas County BOE during the past election. I hope you have taken the time to read the SOS's Investigation of Lucas county following the election:

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/elections/lucas.htm


This report includes the fact that REPUBLICAN VOLUNTEERS were allowed UNSUPERVISED ACCESS to UNSECURED BALLOTS prior to the election, as well as this list:

*failure to maintain ballot security
*Inability to implement and maintain a trackable system for voter ballot reconciliation .
*failure to prepare and develop a plan for the processing of the voluminous amount of voter registration forms received.
*issuance and acceptance of incorrect absentee ballot forms.
*manipulation of the process involving the 3% recount.
*disjointed implementation of the Directive regarding the removal of Nader and Camejo from the ballot .
*failure to properly issue hospital ballots in accordance with statutory requirements.
*failure to maintain the security of poll books during the official canvass
*failure to examine campaign finance reports in a timely manner.
*failure to guard and protect public documents.
*failure to guard and protect public documents ....etc.

Tom W. Noe served as the Chairman of the Lucas County Republican Party from 1992-1995 as well as on the board of the Lucas County Board of Election from 1993-2003. He was also appointed to the Ohio Board of regents in 1995.

http://www.regents.state.oh.us/people/noe.html

It was during his tenure on the BOE that Diebold machines were brought into Lucas County.

"TOLEDO, Ohio, May 10, 2002 ¯ Just about every county in the nation is rushing to update their voting technology, but no county to date has done it faster than Lucas County."
<snip>
"Lucas County Board of Elections Acting Chairman Tom Noe, who was present to observe the May 7th election, was pleased with the outcome. "I don't think there is another county in the nation that has implemented touch screen voting as quickly as Lucas County did for this trial run in a primary election," Noe said. "The people of Lucas County and of Ohio in general can be proud of this achievement.""
http://www.sequoiavote.com/mediadetail.php?id=57

http://www.diebold.com/news/newsdisp.asp?id=2997

Also Mr. Noe intervened with Blackwell in a court case:

Thomas W. Noe files to intervene in Democrat court Case v. BlackwellEdited on Fri May-27-05 05:57 PM by phoebe
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/docs/sandusky/doc5...

Also, please be aware of this information on Democratic Underground, which includes many interesting links:

/www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=371800&mesg_id=371800

There were so many problems concerning the election in Lucas County, including with the Diebold machines. Here is a report from an observer of the re-count in Lucas County:

December 22, 2004
 
Report from Recount Observer, Lucas County, Ohio
Emailed report from Lucas County, Ohio, Recount Observer:

i was a witness for the testing of the optiscan machines on tuesday the 14th.

what is puzzling to me, after the tests of the scanners were finished, the witnesses were not allowed to compare the hand count results to the printed results from the scanners. the ballots, the hand count sheets and the printed tapes were all taken away, to another room, out of sight of any witnesses and about 40 minutes later, the director comes out and tells us everything checks out.

we go to lunch and when we come back, we find ourselves waiting in the lobby. why? we were waiting for diebold to reprogram the scanners. what? didn't they just verify that everything was on the up and up? what is the need to reprogram the scanners?

also, during the testing process, one precinct, sylvania 3, continuously had the test ballots spit back out at least 3 times for approximatley 50% of them. during the election, how many times did this occur and what poll worker is going to stand there and continuosly feed the scanner to get it to scan 1 ballot? therefore, how many of the ballots were put in the spoiled pile that were really not spoiled?

another thing that was very interesting was the two people that i was witnessing actually did not know how to run the scanner. are they the type of people that were the normal who were overseeing the election? am i crazy? what is wrong with this picture?

after witnessing the fiasco of a test recount being conducted at the lucas county government center, i am definitely for scrapping this election and having a re- vote. there isn't any other way we are going to get a legitimate election.

Please also visit "Ohio Election 2004" athttp://ohioelection2004.com.

It was during his tenure on the BOE that Diebold machines were brought into Lucas County.

"TOLEDO, Ohio, May 10, 2002 ¯ Just about every county in the nation is rushing to update their voting technology, but no county to date has done it faster than Lucas County."
<snip>
"Lucas County Board of Elections Acting Chairman Tom Noe, who was present to observe the May 7th election, was pleased with the outcome. "I don't think there is another county in the nation that has implemented touch screen voting as quickly as Lucas County did for this trial run in a primary election," Noe said. "The people of Lucas County and of Ohio in general can be proud of this achievement.""
http://www.sequoiavote.com/mediadetail.php?id=57

http://www.diebold.com/news/newsdisp.asp?id=2997


RIGGING THE VOTE IN LUCAS COUNTY

Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D.
Revised December 24, 2004

-snip-

The very first thing we all noticed when examining the precinct
canvass records for Lucas County was the distribution of turnout.
The range is striking, and turnout is distinctly higher in the
Bush precincts than in the Kerry precincts. In some precincts
the reported turnout is too high to be credible.


PRECINCTS WITH HIGHEST TURNOUT, TOLEDO SUBURBS

Precinct Turnout Bush Kerry

MONCLOVA TOWNSHIP 10 92.67 217 161
MONCLOVA TOWNSHIP 11 92.46 424 298
SYLVANIA TOWNSHIP J 91.97 84 40
OREGON 16 89.46 186 210
MAUMEE 18 89.44 205 190
MONCLOVA TOWNSHIP 7 87.78 285 151
MONCLOVA TOWNSHIP 9 87.58 195 78
RICHFIELD TOWNSHIP 2 86.76 105 83
SYLVANIA TOWNSHIP K 86.74 338 177
SYLVANIA TOWNSHIP I 86.48 270 184
SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP 25 86.17 230 116
OREGON 5 86.09 382 390
MONCLOVA TOWNSHIP 5 85.96 365 181
MAUMEE 12 85.48 197 262
WATERVILLE TOWNSHIP 7 85.36 328 189
OREGON 15 85.23 189 287
YLVANIA CITY 18 85.05 434 214
SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP 9 84.98 297 147
SYLVANIA CITY 10 84.87 254 157
SYLVANIA CITY 21 84.87 516 295
SYLVANIA TOWNSHIP H 84.85 211 122
WATERVILLE TOWNSHIP 3 84.56 356 304
WATERVILLE TOWNSHIP 6 84.48 293 183
WATERVILLE TOWNSHIP 9 84.31 542 260
SYLVANIA TOWNSHIP CC 84.21 262 194


Turnout above 90% is almost unheard of. I have examined the
canvass records in eight other Ohio counties and have seen
reported turnout above 90% only in two precincts in Miami County
where, in my professional opinion, the election was hacked.
Miami and Lucas counties are also the only two counties whose
records I have examined that used optical scanning machines, as
confirmed by the map posted at

verifiedvoting.org/verifier/map.php?&topic_string=5std&state=Ohio



Altogether there were 63 precincts in Toledo with less than 60%
reported turnout. All of them were won overwhelmingly by John
Kerry. The vote in the aggregate was 19,353 to 4,247, more than
4.5 to 1. But look at the distribution, or more precisely, the
concentration. Of the 8 precincts with less than 50% reported
turnout, 4 are located in 2 wards. Of the 29 precincts with less
than 55% reported turnout, 20 are located in 4 wards, and 24 are
located in 6 wards. Of the 63 precincts with less than 60%
reported turnout, 34 are located in 4 wards, 39 are located in
5 wards, and 43 are located in 6 wards.

/web.northnet.org/minstrel/toledo.htm
http://web.northnet.org/minstrel/toledo.htm

December 22, 2004
 
Report from Recount Observer, Lucas County, Ohio
Emailed report from Lucas County, Ohio, Recount Observer:

i was a witness for the testing of the optiscan machines on tuesday the 14th.

what is puzzling to me, after the tests of the scanners were finished, the witnesses were not allowed to compare the hand count results to the printed results from the scanners. the ballots, the hand count sheets and the printed tapes were all taken away, to another room, out of sight of any witnesses and about 40 minutes later, the director comes out and tells us everything checks out.

we go to lunch and when we come back, we find ourselves waiting in the lobby. why? we were waiting for diebold to reprogram the scanners. what? didn't they just verify that everything was on the up and up? what is the need to reprogram the scanners?

also, during the testing process, one precinct, sylvania 3, continuously had the test ballots spit back out at least 3 times for approximatley 50% of them. during the election, how many times did this occur and what poll worker is going to stand there and continuosly feed the scanner to get it to scan 1 ballot? therefore, how many of the ballots were put in the spoiled pile that were really not spoiled?

another thing that was very interesting was the two people that i was witnessing actually did not know how to run the scanner. are they the type of people that were the normal who were overseeing the election? am i crazy? what is wrong with this picture?

after witnessing the fiasco of a test recount being conducted at the lucas county government center, i am definitely for scrapping this election and having a re- vote. there isn't any other way we are going to get a legitimate election.

Please also visit "Ohio Election 2004" athttp://ohioelection2004.com.

[mod mom]

83. More on Lucas County OH, home of Noes/LC BOE problems (new info):

Looking at the GEMS official results I noticed a weird discrepancy:

First, Presidential results from Lucas:

Badnarik 294
bu$h 87,106 (39.56%)
Kerry 132,537 (60.19%)
Cobb 8
Schriner 2

TOTAL VOTES: 220,190 with 495 precinct in Lucas

Now.. there are 2 congressional districts in Lucas County: District 9 and District 5

Here are the results for DISTRICT 9 CONGRESSIONAL SEAT(which obviously includes Toledo):

Kaczala (R) 60,949
Kaptur (D) 145,998

TOTAL VOTES: 206,947 with 478 precincts

DISTRICT 5 CONGRESSIONAL SEAT:

Gillmor (R) 5,497
Weirsuch(D) 3,277

TOTAL VOTES: 8,774 with 17 precincts

********
Total Votes in the County for PRESIDENT=220,190
Total Votes for the county for CONGRESS=215,721

Now it is understandable that more people might vote for president while leaving a congress vote blank, but...

Total Dem Votes in County for President = 132,537 while
Total Dem Votes in County for Congress = 149,275

that equates to 16,738 more dem votes for congress than dem votes for president AND

Marcy KAPTUR IN DISTRICT 9 (WITH 478 PRECINCTS AND A TOTAL OF 206,947 POSSIBLE VOTES) HAD 13,461 MORE VOTES THAN KERRY!

Sounds a little suspicious to moi!

[mod mom]

86. Check out these early Lucas County results from election night-WEIRD!

posted by DUer jsamuel:



Look how many votes Kerry got and Cobb got. Do you think there was a little machine manipulation now?

THIS IS WHY OUR FORUM SHOULD BE ON THE FRONT PAGE. WE NEED TO GET OUR INVESTIGATIONS EXPOSED AND READ. WHAT DOES IT HURT TO KEEP US ON THE FRONT PAGE, ANYHOW?

[helderheid]

89. yea, that doesn't look suspicious at ALL!

:sarcasm:

[helderheid]

91. .

[smartvoter]

93. TIA is absolutely right. Nothing we do will matter if the election

problem is not solved before the 2006 cycle.

[loudsue]

95. WHERE is the Election Forum group??

:shrug: We don't even have a DU Group forum for it! This stinks.

This should be A FRONT PAGE ISSUE until the mess is cleaned up... one way or the other.

:applause: Keep up the good work, TIA!!!! You are the best!

:kick::kick::kick:

[rug]

96. Somebody stole it.

[helderheid]

111. here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=203

[Al-CIAda]

97. .

[VOX]

98. Late night - early a.m. kick! n/t

[In_The_Wind]

100. more people should see these facts

:kick:

[Al-CIAda]

101. .

[Al-CIAda]

103. .

[Al-CIAda]

110. .