The Unanswered Question: Who Really Won in 2004?

[autorank]

7/13/05
.
The Unanswered Question: Who Really Won in 2004?

The Essential Evidence

According to the vote tabulators, in the 2004 presidential election George W. Bush won a stunning victory that defied all odds, particularly those applied by unbiased statisticians. He won despite trailing in most state and national polls. He won despite an approval rating of less than 50%, usually the death knell for an incumbent presidential candidate. He won despite trailing in the three National Exit Polls three timelines from 4pm to 12:22 am (13047 respondents) by a steady 48%-51%, miraculously winning the final exit poll (with only 613 additional respondents, totaling 13,660). This poll was “weighted” (altered) to meet the reported election result on the assumption that the reported result was accurate -- quite an assumption. The final poll showed a stunning reversal of the Kerry 51%-48% poll margin, which had been measured consistently all day by the same polling group: major news/networks and polling firm Edison-Mitofsky.

The analysis of exit polls and documented fraud in this election began on the Internet. A number of academics posted detailed work showing the near-impossible odds of Bush overcoming deficits in the state exit polls and the National Exit Polls. Much of this analysis comes from “TruthIsAll” (TIA), a poster on DemocraticUnderground.Com. TIA has a background and several degrees in applied mathematics. Using various elements of the national and state exit polls and other data sources, he produces results that are thorough, detailed, sober and compelling. He shows ALL data and calculations, while encouraging others to check his math. Only once did he make a minor math error, after asking DUers to check his calculation of probability that at least 16 states would deviate beyond their exit poll margin of error and go for Bush. The answer turned out to be one in 19 trillion! The debates on DemocraticUnderground’s “2004: Election Results and Discussion” forum are legendary and have attracted observers from all over the Net.

Before the election, TIA produced a daily update of his Election Model site. On 11/1/04, based on extensive statistical analysis, he projected a Kerry win of 51.63% to 48.38% using a combined average of national polls, and of 51.80% to 48.2% using a Monte Carlo simulation of individual state polls. After the polls closed, data from the Edison Mitofsky NEP survey (sponsored by the major television networks and CNN) was unintentionally released over the Internet. This was internal network data, embargoed from public use, data with statements like “Estimates not for on-air use” and “This page cannot be displayed.” The networks had locked down this data for their own use in an “electronic cover-up” that was offensive to those who knew the story. Luckily for all of us, Jonathan Simon downloaded the exit poll data and saved the CNN screen shots! The Edison-Mitofsky (EM)-Corporate Media (CM) “embargoed data” was available for anyone with eyes to see it and a mind to review it.

TruthIsAll immediately began analyzing and publishing analyses on the forbidden data. Looking at the demographics on the second to last E-M major network poll, He laid out the set of improbable circumstances needed for Bush to win: “To believe Bush won the election, you must also believe….” This post was cited by Will Pitt in a major blog, which gave it wide visibility on the Net. “KERRY WON THE FEMALE VOTE BY A HIGHER PERCENTAGE THAN BUSH WON THE MALE VOTE…AND MORE WOMEN (54%) VOTED THAN MEN (46%).” It was all right there, polling results that we were never intended to see. But this was only the beginning. There are over 100 individual analytical postings that demonstrate the tremendous odds against a Bush win. This high-level analysis dovetailed with and was confirmed by on-the-ground stories of voting rights violations all over the country, particularly in Ohio.

The key data sources for TIA’s analysis are the four EM National Exit Polls and the 50 state exit polls. For those who doubt the reliability of exit polling, there has been a trend toward accuracy within 0.4% since 1998. These Exit polls are endorsed heartily by international voting rights activists -- the Carter Center, for example -- and even the Bush administration, which used them, ironically, in the Ukraine elections to demonstrate fraud and call for a new election. There has been a trend toward accuracy within 0.4% since 1998.

At 12:22 am on November 3, the national exit poll of 13,047 respondents showed Kerry to be the winner by 51% to 48%, matching TIA’s pre-election projection. The poll was “un-weighted,” meaning the EM and CM had yet to apply weighting “adjustments”: percentages and weights applied to all the demographic categories to match the poll results to the reported vote count! Imagine if this technique had been applied by exit pollsters in the first Ukrainian election to show victory for the incumbent, who had committed gross election fraud. Yet this odd technique of turning a poll into a ratification of the actual voting results was applied in the American election. The final exit poll, with 13,660 respondents, showed a stunning reversal of fortune for Bush. The poll results were “re-weighted” to create a Bush “victory margin.”

The odds against the deviations from the state and national exit polls to the final vote count are astronomical. In addition, there is the consistency of the “pristine” exit poll timeline from 4 pm (8349 respondents) to 7:30 pm (11,027) to 12:22 am (13,047).

In addition to the gender-based evidence cited above, TIA has shown that some weightings for the question “How did you vote in 2000” are mathematically impossible. For example, the final poll claims that 43% of all 2004 voters were former Bush 2000 voters. But 43% of 122.3 million, the number of votes in the 2004 presidential election, is 52.59 million, and Bush only got 50.46 million votes in 2000, approximately 1.75 million of them from voters who have since died. Therefore, Bush’s final poll exit poll numbers, WHICH WERE MATCHED TO THE VOTE, had to be off by 4 million votes.

The analysis also demonstrated that other voter statistics make it impossible for Bush to have won. Even if all Bush voters from 2000 showed up and voted for him, he still needed an additional 13 million votes. He didn’t get them from new voters and those who did not vote in 2000; those voters preferred Kerry by an almost 3-to-2 margin. Because of this, a Bush victory required that he must win a whopping 14% of Gore 2000 voters, all of whom had to return to vote in 2004. But Gore voters were angry; they came back to defeat Bush once again after having the election stolen from them.

Logical absurdities and inconsistencies in Election 2004 abound. The data, analysis, and narrative are available at (insert link) for open-minded individuals who want to form their own conclusions about “Stolen Election 2004.”

This work is just part of a comprehensive set of election fraud work and analysis provided by the dedicated voting rights activists in DemocraticUnderground.Com’s “2004: Election Results and Discussion” forum, a unique Net resource.

[David Dunham]

1. Bush won, sadly.

[Twist_U_Up]

2. not according to this

http://www.electionfraud2004.org/presentation/index.html

[seabeyond]

3. i dont agree n/t

[Der Blaue Engel]

4. You're sadly mistaken n/t

[autorank]

7. Sadly by cheating! The statistical evidence is so convincing of fraud

plus all the other evidence, there's huge doubt about his voctory. In fact, there are many reasons to believe that it was stolen! Look at the evidence.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

10. Yeah, right. Take it somewhere else.

[BrklynLiberal]

16. No, Nyet, Nope. Nowayjose. Not in this reality

I will never, ever believe that Bush EVER won a Presidential election...

[Richard Steele]

19. Not a chance. Did you even READ any of the post?

[autorank]

24. READing THINKing ANALYZing -- why bother (not)

If people read the post, more importantly, if they read the analysis by TIA then there are all sorts of horrors that come up -- like how could this have happened twice. Florida WAS stolen, period. Disenfranchised voters (90,000 blacks by design through "felon" purges that purged many, many people with no record, mostly black Floridians), screwy ballots, crazy recounts, or lack thereof...all of this happened in Florida.

What did our great Democratic leaders do? Well, Gore fought for a good while but after SCOTUS ruled, he had to stop. When the NAACP and the State of Florida reached a consent decree where Florida admitted the voting rights violations, you could have heard a pin drop.

Ohio, Florida, New Mexico etc. in 2004 generated the same tepid organizational response. Nothing. DNC's report on Ohio is a joke. Conyers was right on but they ignored that.

Why don't they take two stolen elections seriously?

Why have Democrats put up with 1-3 million "spoiled" ballots in every presidential election for decades, mostly in black precincts?

I'm not quite sure, but one thing I know, it's no way to win elections. It is also bad "advertising" for a party to lay down and get slammed time and again and not fight back. No wonder they think we'd be weak on national security. We don't even fight for our own voters!

[earth mom]

32. You can't be serious-Have you even read the election forum here on DU?

Check it out.

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

[Griffy]

37. your proof plz... oh yeah.. thats right.. Evoting leaves no proof!

and yet you believe these liars? please wake up.. you dont know bush won.. you just following the crowd.. NO ONE KNOWS WHO WON.. THATS THE PROBLEM... jeez, what dont you understand about Evoting?!


prpaganda has reached you.. shake it off!

[FizzFuzz]

50. I don't believe that for one hot second.

Exit polls have historically been used to check on honesty in elections in developing nations, because they are so reliable.

They stole it.

[dchill]

82. Uhhh..."Bush won, BADLY."

May I politely suggest that you have some research to do?

[Oversea Visitor]

5. The Corporations

[autorank]

8. See my sig line! You're right, exactly dead on!

[Oversea Visitor]

18. I dont

get clouded by politicals issue. Totally neutral and I am not an Americans.
Every plans has an objectives.
Looking at all the events in US concluesion is that is all about profiterring.

A 5.6 trillion surplus under Clinton becomes a huge 11.3 trillion deficit.

A nation wealth belong to the people.
Where did the money go?
Was it spend on the people?
What was the benefits to the people?

All this cost cutting
Who is hurting?
Who is benefiting?

All this tax break
Who is benefiting

All this cap on lawsuit
Who is benefiting

11.3 trillion good gracious.... where did it all go.

[autorank]

23. Mr. Hal I Burton I believe and a few of his close associates.

They're quite happy now. The incentive to "coutour" electoins isn't to benefit the candidate, obviously, but to benefit those to whom the candidate is beholden. No disagreement at all between us.

[Oversea Visitor]

27. And also

The 8 billion UN food for oil fund pass over to the US to help Iraq reconstruction..... it all disappear.

[autorank]

28. Billions disappear in Iraq on a regular basis.

It is all because the will of the people in this country was denied twice: 2000 and 2004. That is political process molded by financial incentive. The $11 trillion dollar spread surplus-deficit, the $200 billion spend in Iraq on the war, the lost funds...the risk-return ration for stealing an electoin really paid off.

[Oversea Visitor]

31. Sadly the only way

to keep this charade going is to keep lying and stealing. Just like Iraq there is no exit plan just a damn big hole that get bigger and bigger.
Dont know what it takes for American to accept that what they are looking at is reality and what the greatness of the past.
2006 is going to be another disaster.... still the same old machines.
Cannot be verified, only thing they sure have to cook up a storm to cook the result. Be interesting to see how the people swallow all this.

But take care... now it is a very dangerous world for American. Hope there is correction before those sucide bombers start on US.

[Yupster]

64. Oversea Vistitor

Those defecit and surplus numbers you listed were projected numbers looking years ahead into the future.

Clinton did a very fine job managing the budget and by his last two years had turned a $ 200 + billion defecit into a surplus (although social security surpluses were being added in to make it look better than it actually was, but that's another story).

The largest surplus he had was about $ 200 billion I think.

The idea of a $ 5 trillion surplus was if the economy kept going the way it was, then over umteen years, the surpluses year after year would add up to $ 5 trillion.

The same thing holds for the $ 11 trillion defecit that you wonder about. Bush's defecit last year was somewhere around $ 400-500 billion. It would be even worse if the socal security surplus wasn't hiding part of it. Anyway, that's bad enough.

There isn't an $ 11 trillion defecit.

The $ 11 trillion is if the budget keeps worsening like it has for umteen years after years, then we would have an accumulated defecit of $ 11 trillion.

I guess the analogy would be if you had a $ 20,000 a year job and decided to stay home with the kids instead.

How much of a defecit will the family budget now have? You could say $ 20,000. Or you could say $ 800,000 because losing that projected $ 20,000 for the next 40 years would indeed equal $ 800,000.

It wouldn't make sense to say "wow - where did the $ 800,00 go though." It was projected income, not realized income. Hope that makes sense.

[seabeyond]

6. has truth is all tried sending this stuff to like university

professor to have class study or anything. would be interesting with all his information (assuming it is a he cause of math, ya genderistic)to see if some mathmatician took his numbers and conclusions and worked with them.

just a thought, maybe a stupid one. not knowing anything about numbers i am just thrilled with tia and would like to see something come of all he did

[elperromagico]

9. Here's a question: Does Kerry believe he won?

Of course, any answer to that question that doesn't come from Kerry or someone in his inner circle is going to be pure speculation, but I can't help wondering what he thinks about this.

Kerry conceded quickly; was that because he felt he had been beaten in a fair fight or was it because he knew he had won but believed his chances of successfully proving it were slim?

We all remember John Edwards' defiance on election night, as he came out and told the crowd that the campaign was going to fight. Was that bravado from a defeated campaign or the dedicated pledge of a campaign poised to battle for victory?

For Kerry to concede the next day, little more than 12 hours after Edwards' statement, is an obvious contradiction. If the Kerry campaign knew it had lost Ohio and therefore had lost the election, why send Edwards out with such a defiant statement?

If the Kerry campaign believed that the 300,000 provisional ballots (the ballots Kerry cited as the primary reason for conceding) would win Ohio for them, why was such defiance necessary? Why not simply wait for those ballots to be counted?

What happened in the Kerry campaign during those few hours between Edwards' statement and Kerry's concession? Did the campaign, believing that Kerry had won and that Bush had stolen the election, decide to fight all-out? Was Kerry then persuaded by the more weak-willed members of his campaign (the same people who advised him not to fight the Swift Boaters) that it was best to concede "for the good of the country"?

I'm speculating my ass off. As I've said, anything that doesn't come from Kerry himself or from his inner circle is pure speculation. But the actions of the campaign on election night and the following day strike me as one of the mysteries of the election.

[autorank]

13. If you look at the Ohio exit poll analysis you'll realize he did win.

The margin of error for the poll the consistency of state and national exit polls, etc. argue strongly for fraud in Ohio.

I think Kerry and Edwards knew they were screwed and that Edwards wanted to fight. I also think that Kerry did not know how badly vote inflation took place in the rest of the country, leaving him the option of pushing for victory in Ohio and becoming a president elected with a minority of votes. The real politic of that is, let it go; it would be worse to govern without the majority win.

If you look at the exit poll analysis, you have a choice: either the laws of statistics apply in this like all other cases of analysis and Kerry won nationally and in Ohio OR God intervened and a miracle took place; reason was suspended and Bush won.

The election was a farce, Kerry was rolled by inadequate information, and the K-E team failed to listen to people who were telling them about massive fraud (which was abundantly clear in Ohio well before the election).

It's not a simple scenario but Kerry's decision to not pursue a fight was based on incomplete information and also provided by the "usual suspects" from DNC and the DNC consultancy.

It is a shame. I would have loved to see him as President.

[TruthIsAll]

35. Kick for auto..

.

[esvhicl]

46. They threatened Kerry

Theresa was clinging to her man, like she feared for her life during his concession.

BushCo are gangsta's...

[understandinglife]

11. Senator Kerry won. The dominionist and Rove stole it. America lost. -nt

WATCH IT; SPREAD IT http://www.bushflash.com/right.html

Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us - How ever long it takes, the day must come when tens of millions of caring individuals peacefully but persistently defy the dictator, deny the corporatists their cash flow, and halt the evil being done in Iraq and in all the other places the Bu$h neoconster regime is destroying civilization and the environment in the name of "America."

[loudsue]

12. Excellent Article & Post!!! Kerry WON, and anybody with 2 brain cells

to rub together KNOWS IT.

Kicked & nominated.

:kick::kick::kick:

[autorank]

14. Well, you know, I think even one brain cell is enough!

:hi:

[stilpist]

15. Former Governor Bush's Ohio supporters didn't believe

that Numnutz would win. They pulled out all the jim-crow stops to steal the election. I trust their judgement.

There's no way to prove that Kerry won Ohio; of course that's why they want the unrecountable machines.

By the way, notice that this time they *overwhelmingly* stole Florida. They thought they had it stolen in 2000, but if it hadn't been for butterfly ballots or some other flukes Gore would have won it in spite of their efforts. They took no chances in 2004. They won't lose Florida again until the Democrats make them stop.

If you haven't seen it yet you should read

this

[autorank]

17. You're right. They almost blew Florida. Why didn't DEMs see OH coming?

It wasn't as though they did this on the sly. It was done with an iron hammer, much of it public. Why couldn't the DEMS have flooded the state with a protest squad includint Kerry and Edwards and said: Don't you dare! But they didn't, complacent and naive.

What a shame.

I'd love to see you link but it sends me to a MicroSoft page. Could you re post it. Thanks

[stilpist]

21. I think I've fixed the link.

It now works when I click it so maybe for you too. It's Jim Lampley's May 10 piece on the Huffington Post.

As to the Democrats' haplessness in 2004 Ohio, I don't know either. Maybe until a Democratic congress can de-privatize the vote counting etc., we need 50 Democratic Secretarys of State. It's tough when the theives are in charge.

[autorank]

22. Great. Lampley got a lot of this data (the link in the above post)

That was a great article. He was also on the BradBlog radio show. He's a very brigh guy.

[AndyTiedye]

44. We All Saw Ohio Coming -- We Still Couldn't Stop Them From Stealing It

When the poll watchers got in the way, they just declared a "terra alert"
and threw everyone out except the party hacks.

They were even throwing out registrations for the wrong paper weight
until the Dems went to court and stopped them. By then thousands of
registrations had already been destroyed.

The Repubs hold every statewide office in Ohio. They own every aspect
of the electoral process and they use that ownership to ensure victory.

Perhaps we need to focus our efforts on states that still have free
elections, even if the Democrats don't poll as well there.

States like Ohio and Florida no longer have a functioning democracy,
and all the effort we have spent there in the past 4 1/2 years has
been wasted.

[helderheid]

75. I saw Ohio coming

what I didn't see was the vote padding all States coming.

[Cleita]

20. I've been sending TIA's work to our local election

reform committee, but I think the real problem is to get this information to go mainstream. I know that the corporate media wouldn't really touch it but has anyone approached any magazine like Mother Jones or The Nation to publish an article on it?

[BeFree]

25. NGU...Kerry won

The election was stolen, again.

Thanks goes to autorank for the message, eh?

NGU...Never Give Up

[autorank]

26. NGU so we can BeFree

:hi:

[Helga Scow Stern]

29. Excellent post, autorank. Way to keep first things first!

In 2006 and even sooner here in California, we are going to be faced with all this confusion of the truth all over again.

[snot]

30. Terrific--yay!

I'd actually been thinking someone should write a book--we're witnessing some very momentous things. Not just momentous fraud, but also an incredibly exciting and crucial moment of citizen heroism!

I hope this narrative continues. I like the following aspects, and would like to see them heightened even further:

(1) I like references to particular individuals who have made outstanding contributions. The "human interest" angle can make the read more interesting; and I also feel these folks highly deserve our recognition and thanks!

I hope the narrative will accord recognition to all those who played key roles, including the handful of journalists who have been reporting this story.

(2) I really appreciate having the essentials of the story boiled down. Personally, I'm nearly brain-dead when it comes to math; but I also think that realistically, the story has to be reduced to its essentials in order for the masses to take it in.

C.f. J. Stewart's Daily Show--in broaching the Plame story last night, he made a big to-do about how COMPLICATED the story is, how you have to really focus and sustain attention, etc. I'm afraid his approach was probably warranted; and I'm afraid the election fraud story is even MORE complicated.

(3) I like the relatively dispassionate tone--for me, that kind of tone has the most credibility. We need to lay the facts out so their interrelations are clear, as I think this narrative does; if we do that, I think the facts will speak for themselves.

I was a judicial clerk, and the goal in writing was to NEVER sound like you have an axe to grind; just lay out the facts and law in a dispassionate tone, but arrayed so that it seems no conclusion is possibly other than the one you're reaching. (There is an art to this, but it's eminently do-able when in fact all you're trying to do is administer truth and justice!)

(4) I think this story also presents an opportunity to examine something fascinating to me, and perhaps I'm not alone--I hate to use buzzwords I'm not even all that knowledgeable about--but I'm convinced we're witnessing an extraordinary "emergence", some kind of "tipping-point" in evolution: that the internet and sites like DU have in some sense actually forged a giant, super-human brain capable of feats not achievable by any group of individuals that was smaller or that was organized in a more traditional, top-down manner.

In the same vein, as I wrote to another DU'er last week or two . . .

>>two phenomena could be well-illustrated: one, the
>>aspect of internet uses as means for disseminating or
>>"pushing" info to other folks who wouldn't otherwise have
>>known they needed it, and two, the internet as research
>>tool--e.g., the way DU'ers managed to collect a great deal
>of
>>data about exit polls and other info re- the 2004 election
>>(with mention of the way in which a lot of those sources of
>>info mysteriously disappeared after being discovered).
>>
>>This could actually be valuable, too, in helping to raise
>>awareness of the importance of maintaining relatively
>>uncontrolled speech AND access (searching) on the internet
>>(uncontrolled, that is, by commercial forces as well as
>>political).

[tommcintyre]

33. Yep. So it's time for a SERIOUS investigation. n/t

[Paradise]

34. need i say more...

"Former President George Bush was Director of Central Intelligence and head of the Central Intelligence Agency from 30 January 1976 to 20 January 1977."

they do it all the time... :shrug:

[helderheid]

36. Recommended! Good on ya TIA!

[AzDar]

38. That little simian mofo has NEVER won a Presidential election. I'm

alternately horrified and relieved by this TRUTH!!!

[bleever]

39. Great job, autorank.

Thanks!

We are Not. Giving. Up.

:patriot:

[bigw1313]

40. Polls and statistics

As much as everyone would like to believe that the election was stolen using the info from polls and statistics is not the best way to prove it. For example the average poll has a +/- factor of 3 to 5 points so if it showed 51 for Kerry and 48 for Bush it could also be the exact reverse. When you are calculating statistics you use a very small base number then determine the percentage from that. It can show trends and odds but it is not 100% accurate. The other part as to the odds of all of the polls having to be wrong in order for Bush to win yes those are huge numbers against it but have you looked at the odds for winning Powerball, yet someone wins.

The best way to stop election fraud is to get involved at the local level. Volunteer and work at the polls. Have you looked at the average age of the poll workers? All of them seem to be senior citizens. When I signed up at my new town I was the youngest one here at the age of 43. Get involved don't just complain about the results.

[TruthIsAll]

42. The margin of error for the NEP was 1.0%.

The margin of error for state polls varied from 1.8% (2800 respondents) to 4% (600 respondents), depending on the number of respondents. The battleground states had an MoE near 2.2% (2000 respondents)

In a civil court, the probabilities would far exceed the minimum required for a conviction. The circumstantial evidence for fraud is overwhelming when the state and national polls agree.

The fact that there is also overwhelming documented evidence of fraud only enhances the credibility of exit polls.

[bleever]

43. This argument has been examined in incredibly detailed fashion

here in this forum. If you devote even a single hour to reading just the recaps that autorank has provided, you'll see what really happened.

Yes, the odds of winning Powerball for each person are microscopic, but one out of millions of people wins. By your logic, it should take millions of elections before a result this mathematically screwy turns up.

Getting involved on the local level is essential. But if the elections are rigged again, all the countless hours of hard work are pointless.

Please be aware that there is a vast body of evidence and work here in this forum, at it will be to your great advantage to read up on it before telling folks here to "move on".

Also, welcome to DU. All sincere efforts are appreciated here.

[autorank]

41. thanks bleevr-see the "essentials" thread from tia in erd. it's 15

selected threads with commentary. great tool

[bigw1313]

45. Reviewing the posts

I have been following the posts here and on other sites. The problem that I see is that when information comes in like the DNC report on voting in Ohio and it did not show fraud it is dismissed because it does not agree with the point of view already decided. I believe that there is fraud in an election and that it is done by both sides. I still don't believe that using statistical analysis is the right way to approach the problem.

For example the Gov race in Washington was shown to be a farce, how can the people in charge of something as important as a persons right to vote throw away ballets, not verify # registered to # voted and more.

Also I don't understand why showing an ID to vote is bad. Wouldn't that help to verify who is voting? I don't by the argument that it discriminates because people need an ID to cash a check, rent a car and many other basic things in life.

[autorank]

52. Good Points. Consider this.

I would recommend that you glance at the entire DNC Ohio report. It's available as a PDF down load. What a piece of work. The statistical analysis is 100 pages of a 200 page report and it's obscrue and unaccessible. The reset of the report looks like it's been bundled together. They have consultant letter head beginning some chapters and clearly different font, all of which means they collated rather than created.

1) They went out of their way to say that they were not going to claim election fraud. This is interesting since that means they lost (but I guess that crew is used to it).

If you were going to make that case, the first thing you would do would be look at the very best available polling evidence, the State Exit Poll for Ohio. The polling firm has a margin of error that is around 1.0%. It was done on electing day, and related directly to the question "who voted for." They never mentioned it.

They did offer 100 pages of a new fraud detection statistical approach form a Harvard guy (as if that would impress us). Keep in mind the report was only about 200 pages. Anyway, his model is something he developed. Terrific, they base their denial of a stolen Ohio on a new approach while they COMPLETELY IGNORE A SUCCESSFUL METHODOLOGY, THE STATE EXIT POLLS.

If they were serious about the report, they would have mentioned the State Exit Polls and dismissed them for some reason. They can't deny election fraud without denying these polls. These polls have been done for years and have a tack record (moving toward 0.04% accuracy approaching this election).

Also, lets look at what else they didn't mention. Florida 2000 resulted in the disenfranchisement of 90,000 black Americans. This happened as a result of the software acquired to do felon purges. The vendor said it would not be accurate. Jeb ran it anyway and the rest is history. If there had been just a 1% turnout among the 90,000 REGISTERED voters wrongfully removed from the rolls, Gore wins. Well, NAACP sued the state of Florida. A year or so later, Florida entered into a consent decree where they admitted their foul moves with the purge software. In return, the suit was dropped upon a "promise" by Florida to do better next time.

This was not raised by DEMS when it came our. It was not discussed by the DNC report. It is a disgrace to not use it. This should have been the introduction and the battle cry - Florida, Ohio, where next!

Why, you ask, would the DNC not point out election fraud? I don't know but it's wrong to assume that their lack of a challenge means nothing was wrong. Just ask people from Ohio on this service what happened. Or read the Conyers Report.

The vote is secret to the voter but not the government or either political party.

Here is an abridged version of "The Essential" analytic threads. I encourage you to review them and make up your own mind. Don't be led by DNC. Dean has one hell of a clean up job to do. The permanent bureaucrats are holding on for dear life.

[ObaMania]

47. Kerry did.

You could see it in the faces of the Re :puke: talking heads around 6 PM eastern that night. It was weird.. kind'a like they were waiting for some news that was gonna change the way the election was going. And they got their wish. The fix went in.

Also, I got a clue from how long it took to get many of the returns in. Some states that are normally tabulated and closed down for the night were still up reporting into the wee hours. Didn't we learn our lesson from 2000 and improve things just a bit?

It was a very weird scene that whole night. The election was (IMO) being stolen before our eyes. Kerry was winning - not by much - and that small margin was just enough for the criminal GOP operatives to get to work and shave/manipulate votes in all the close and questionable areas (or those that suddenly this year were in "play").

[bigw1313]

48. 2004 Election

Does everyone here realize how paranoid you sound? Does everyone really think that a national election with all of the press coverage, thousands of people working on it and the money that could be made by going public with fraud, could really be fixed? Wow. Are we talking about the same government that takes a year to fix a road half a mile long. The same government that can't wait to leak any little bit of information about its opponents to gave just a little political advantage.

Yes there is fraud but a national conspiracy they are not that smart. If they were they would qualify for real jobs in the real world.

[althecat]

49. Hey Autorank... can I post this on Scoop?

[autorank]

53. pm me :)

.

[autorank]

59. althecat, Better Copy

this cross post has a better format for the threads. it links 1st to "The Essentials" post of 15 select threads by "the man" which ARE ANNOTATED (beautiful piece of work). here's the link to the cross post.

you probably know this but you'll have to reinsert the links since DU truncates them. the release is the appetiser, the links are the main meal!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x384064

[FizzFuzz]

51. good work, autorank!

I tried to recommend but I'm too late.

here's a kcik instead

:hi:

[autorank]

55. FizzFuzz...kick me anytime!

Very nice seeing you!!!

;)

[FizzFuzz]

57. OK here goes:

ka----POW!!!!!!!!!!!

LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!
ah haaaaaaa laughing at my own hilarity!
Ha! Haaaaa! Ha. ha. h. oy.

Hey rank, how ya doin? Good to see you too! Hope your summer is good. No complaints here.
:D :D :D

[whistle]

54. I don't really know, but one thing is certain, the American people

...LOST BIG TIME!

[autorank]

56. We were bent over the barrel, whatever that means.

It happened in Florida and Gover fought but the party forgot.

It happened in Florida, Ohio, New Mexico (just for starters) and the party forgot (until the DNC report of a few weeks ago which we can forget, it's not helpful).

It will happen again and again until people decide that we need a party and leaders who are ready to fight with everything they have to ensure our most fundamental right, to vote and to have the vote counted.

[bigw1313]

63. Talk to your local Dem leaders

The problem I am seeing lately from the national Democratic Party is the same problem that I have been seeing here in MA for many years, it's arrogance. The politicians here have been in power for so long they believe that it is their right to be in office. They don't give a damn what the voters want they do what they want. We have passed several referendums in the past five years and the legislature ignores them even when told to implement them by the courts.

The National Party hasn't come up with a new idea in years. Look at Kerry in the debates, his response half the time was "We can do it better". Do what better the same thing only better. Or "I have a plan" What plan tell us the f.... plan don't just say you have a plan tell us what the hell it is. Now matter what you believe about what the Republicans do in elections you have to notice that the Democratic Party is losing everywhere. This is not good for the country. (By the way I would say the same thing if the situation was reversed) The country needs balance it needs two equally influential parties, without it the party in power loses touch with the people that put them there. That is what I have been seeing in Mass for years and I don't want to see it happen to the country.

I guess what I am trying to say is people need to spend more time on building up what the Democratic Party is about and less time with the "Bush is evil" Repukes blah blah blah. Guess what, the other side says the same thing about this side. Rise above it and do something positive and acknowledge the fact that both sides have something good to add and the balance is somewhere in the middle.

[inthebrain]

58. And some wonder why we lost the elections we win!!!

Is anyone, calling themselves a Democrat to be taken seriously when they proclaim, "Because the press didnt cover it, it never happened"

I think many proposing that as a justified reason for proclaiming there is no national cospiracy undertake a study of right wing media power in this country. Its really that bad!!!

How many papers does Murdoch own?

How many media outlets are owned by Moon?

Who owns ABC and what were their political affiliations?

Who owns NBC and MSNBC? Could it be a major weapons contractor?

All these factors play a big a role and I havent even gotten into think tank power. Media bullying plays a big role what gets covered and what gets ignored.

Why, after the 2000 election stolen in FL, was there not any investigative jouranlism employed. These kinds of conspiracies are possible when you have media controlled by private enterprises.

Not to mention the influence of a small sector of anti intellectual elitests like Efron, Weyrich, Scaife, Coors, ExxonMobil and Murdoch.

The 2004 election was stolen and I have no doubt of that.

[autorank]

62. WELCOME TO DU!!! inthebrain. We need more like you.

You get my award for DU Line of the Month

New DUer inthebrain nails the line of the month:

Is anyone, calling themselves a Democrat to be taken seriously when they proclaim, "Because the press didnt cover it, it never happened"

My answer to your fine rhetorical question is ABSOLUTELY NOT. Who likes to lose, who likes to just take it again and again, who likes to quibble around the margins when the country is vanishing into a goo of corporate incompetence.

Great post! Check out 2004 Election Results and Discussion Forum.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=203

[inthebrain]

68. Thanks autorank

My biggest gripe with Dems these days circles around the lack of attention payed to this subject.

It's embarassing.

If each Democrat spent even five minutes of their time each day addressing this we would have no problems. All that money spent by Coors, Scaife and Murdich would be a wastefull expenditure. THey barely win with all the outlets they own.

Media Matters for America is the most useful tool any Democrat or liberal can use to address it.

Not to mention the voter fraud.

[bigw1313]

65. Response

"Why, after the 2000 election stolen in FL, was there not any investigative journalism employed. These kinds of conspiracies are possible when you have media controlled by private enterprises."

And who would you have control the media?

The options are private enterprise or government.

And we all know how unbiased the news in the Soviet Union was.

I believe there were many investigative reports into Florida the problem is that if you don't believe the people doing the investigating you won't believe the results if they don't line up with your beliefs so you have a self fulfilling prophecy. So either you don't believe anything except your already preconceived notions or you need to open your mind to other ideas.

I try to listen to both sides and then come to my own conclusions. No side lies all the time and no side tells the truth all the time.

[inthebrain]

67. The media is controlled by the Republican party.

I you want to have a discussion about private ownership vs public and it's pros and cons I suggest you look into who controls the media.

Secondly, if you are out looking for subjective truths, you are a bigger sucker to this BS sold to you in print media and televised media than you realize. The truth is not subjective when it comes to voter fraud and stealing elections.

It's not a my side vs your side argument.

Secondly, I would have some trust busters come in and restrict media ownership. None of this one guy owns 30 media outlets and another guy owning 60.

I would also make it illegal for those who receive government contracts to own any media at all in this country.

What you talk about the media in the Soviet Union somehow being different than what we have today is freaking hilarious!!!!

You "believe there were many investigative reports" into the FL election scandal?

By who?

Not the Main Stream Media!!! Nor did the MSM report the voter fraud in 2004. The only one questioning WTF was going in the media was Olberman.

And believing isnt knowing.

I seriously suggest you investigate what media power is and who controls it.

Luke Skywalker said; "I don't believe it".

Yoda Replyed; "That is why you fail"

[bigw1313]

69. Response

"You "believe there were many investigative reports" into the FL election scandal?

By who?

Not the Main Stream Media!!! Nor did the MSM report the voter fraud in 2004. The only one questioning WTF was going in the media was Olberman."

How about NYTimes, CNN, Newsweek, Time, Washington Post. Now I understand that you have issues with the ownership of the media but a little commonsense would show you that the belief that the media banded together to hide something like this for this many years with no one coming forward does take a little bit of paranoia. Did you not read the DNC report on the Ohio 2004 election? I believe I first read about it in the Boston Globe with a link to the report. As for TV news I watch it for the weather and sports and I only believe half of what I see about the weather.

"What you talk about the media in the Soviet Union somehow being different than what we have today is freaking hilarious!!!!"

I am sure that the publishers of the Soviet papers had no problem if they published articles calling Lenin a liar. Or about Stalin's sex life. Or about who leaked what to whom. Oh wait they would have a small problem if they didn't like being arrested and sent to prison or shot. Please get a little perspective read a little history. I had friends who could translate the Soviet papers and read them to me and they were the funnest things I ever read. Sad but funny.

[inthebrain]

70. History?

LOL

Reading your posts I can find at least three Republican talking points!!!!

Yet you think for yourself?

THe first one being that people who discuss this are "paranoid".

Secondly Newsweek didnt cover the story in 2004 either.

IT WAS A FUCKING NEWSWEEK REPORTER THAT OLBERMAN GRILLED FOR NOT COVERING THE STORY!!!!!!!

Therefor I know your full of crap.

[inthebrain]

71. And further proof.

Conservatives rail against MSNBC's Olbermann for reporting election irregularities

Media conservatives have labeled MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann a "voice of paranoia" and accused him of perpetuating "idiotic conspiracy theories" for his sustained spotlight on the numerous local news reports of voting irregularities during the November 2 presidential election. Olbermann's emphasis during Countdown with Keith Olbermann on voting irregularities has been part of a critique of what he has called the "Rube Goldberg voting process of ours" -- as well as a criticism of the major media outlets' failure to report on the irregularities.

In her November 11 nationally syndicated column, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter falsely asserted that Olbermann has been "peddling the theory that Bush stole the election" and referred to "Olbermann's idiotic conspiracy theory." A November 14 column by associate editor Bill Steigerwald in the conservative Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (owned by right-wing financier Richard Mellon Scaife) claimed Olbermann "really made a Dan Rather of himself" by focusing a segment of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann on allegations of voter fraud. And in his November 10 "Inside Politics" column, Washington Times columnist Greg Pierce quoted the conservative Media Research Center's analysis of Olbermann's coverage:

"With 'Did Your Vote Count? The Plot Thickens' as his on-screen header, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann on Monday night led his 'Countdown' program with more than 15 straight minutes of paranoid and meaningless claims about voting irregularities in states won by President Bush," the Media Research Center reports at www.mediaresearch.org.

But Olbermann has not suggested that the election was stolen. Discussing the possible causes of the bevy of reported voting irregularities from around the country, Olbermann offered this analysis on the November 10 edition of Countdown:

There are really only three possible explanations for all of this. The first is hoped for virtually unanimously by supporters of every candidate and every party -- namely, that all those elected last Tuesday got in because that's the way the people voted. The second is that some of them got in through manipulation of a series of insufficiently sophisticated, insufficiently secure computer voting machines that might be hacked into by the nearest 9-year-old. But the third possibility is actually more heart-stopping still, one that threatens the democracy in the way 100 terrorist rings could not -- that the president or the District 90 dog catcher or other Republicans or other Democrats were elected because a series of insufficiently sophisticated, insufficiently secure computer voting machines was affected by bad design, bad use, damp ballots, power surges, and/or static cling.

Olbermann's commitment to addressing voting irregularities has been coupled with commentary on the lack of media coverage they have received, which Media Matters for America has also noted. "Even assuming there's nothing nefarious about the national election," Olbermann asked Newsweek senior editor and columnist Jonathan Alter, "why has the cascade of irregularities around this country occurred virtually in a news blackout?" Alter responded by saying that "I'm not justifying this, but by way of explanation, I think it is that there's no sense that, with a three-and-a-half-million vote difference , that this would affect the outcome, even if there were widespread irregularities found." On the November 11 edition of Countdown, Congressional Quarterly columnist and MSNBC political analyst Craig Crawford offered another perspective: "The glib answer, which is part of the truth, is I think everybody was tired after that election. ... e're often wimps in the media. And we wait for other people to make charges, one political party or another, and then we investigate it."

In a November 14 entry on his MSNBC.com weblog, Olbermann responded to the attacks on him by citing the gradual increase in attention the voting irregularities issue is receiving among the mainstream press:

On Friday, David Shuster, who has already done some excellent research at Hardblogger , did a piece on the mess for Hardball, and Chris followed up with a discussion with Joe Trippi and Susan Molinari. There was a cogent, reasoned, unexcited piece about the mechanics of possible tampering and/or machine failure on CNN's "Next" yesterday, and Saturday alone there were serious news pieces in the Cincinnati Enquirer, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Los Angeles Times, Salt Lake Tribune, and Seattle Post-Intelligencer. NPR did a segment of its "On The Media" on the topic (with said blogger as the guest).

And today the New York Times continues its series of "Making Vote Counts" editorials with a pretty solid stance on the necessity of journalistic and governmental proof that the elections weren't tampered with. ... I suspect the coverage is going to go through the roof as the news spreads that Nader has gotten his recount in New Hampshire, and that the Greens and Libertarians are actually going to get their Ohio recount. When reporters discover what Jonathan Turley pointed out to us on Tuesday's show, namely that 70% of Ohio's votes were done with punch cards and as Florida proved in 2000, in court, a lot of those punch cards -- as Jon put it -- "turn over," I suspect there will be long-form television on the process.

[Bravo411]

60. lack of a verifiable paper record

Setting aside all the reports of voter infringement, polling tapes being lost or destroyed, and records being withheld, let’s just focus on being able to verify the vote.

Because of the lack of a verifiable paper record, it can not reasonably be proven that Bush lost the election. On the other hand, it can neither be proven that he won the election. So if the resulting outcome can not be proven and verified one way or the other, then it seems that the argument over whether Bush won or not becomes a moot point. The entire election should have been invalidated and a new election should have taken place. One in which there is a verifiable record of the vote count.

[dbeach]

61. american euro royalty

court intrigue..sir adolph..oops I mean rudolph ghoulianni..oops I mean sir rudoph gulliani knighted after his extroardinary service to his country by her nibs after his heroisn on 9/11

now I wonder if king george will knight sir rudolph after his heroic reporting on 7/7/05

BTW why was dolph in londonistan last wk??

MAYBE the anthrax clean-up business is going slow? but it was still a great investment!!

King George Bush the second= KGB II

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[autorank]

73. Welcome to DU!!!

He did run a dirty smear campaign...all the more reason for you to review this annotated link of research. This is completely transparent and critiqued online by some rough customers. Either the laws of science apply and * lost or electoin day was like "The Day the Earth Stood Still", a coreographed fiction. Take the red pill and take a look, this will open your mind:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x383957

[TruthIsAll]

74. Read the threads. Then come back and tell us who won.

/

[Linette]

81. Sadly, even though Bush may have lost...

...he's still running the government.

What makes me mad is knowing that the final vote tally shouldn't have been close enough for the Republicans to pull off the theft.

We would have won comfortably if Democratic leaders and their hired strategists had any kind of clue as to what they are dealing with in the Republican Party.

Right now, they're still putty in the hands of their Republican Nemesis.

WAKE UP DLC!!

[raysr]

72. Exit Polls said

Kerry.

[theboss]

76. "background and several degrees in applied mathematics"

From where?

This has always been my question. His/ numbers are interesting but I've never really trusted him or his methodology.

[TruthIsAll]

83. Don't trust me. Confirm for yourself.

You have the data.
You have the formulas.
You have the calculations.
You have the probabilities.
What more do you want?

If you have alternative analyses to show us, show us.

Forget the fact that I have advanced degrees. If you can't verify the analysis for yourself, take it to some professors.

Oh, and while you are at it: if you have any proof that Bush really did win, please show it to us.

[WI_DEM]

77. I believe that Bush may have won popular vote but Kerry electoral

a reversal of '00. I think Ohio may have been for Kerry, but Bush's margins in the red states gave Bush the popular vote, especially since in many blue states Kerry's margins of victory were lower than Gore in '00.

[TruthIsAll]

80. What you believe is not what the exit polls have revealed.

STATE AND NATIONAL.

YOU MUST THEREFORE BELIEVE IN rBr.
OK, KEEP BELIEVING.

[dogday]

78. Who would of thought Zogby, The Odds Makers, The Exit Polls

could all be so wrong....

[leeroysphitz]

79. RE: The Unanswered Question: Who Really Won in 2004?

Hey, in fair democratic elections "everybody" is a winner! (sarc)

[rumpel]

84. With all the criminal activities slowly coming to light, it is all but

more part of the whole theme that election fraud was committed. Sooner or later existing facts including circumstantial evidence will be tied into the whole puzzle.