I'm skeptical: what is the best evidence so far of fraud?

[rockydem]

The commondreams article posted on Moore's cite is not conclusive evidence of fraud. Those counties in question went for Bush in 2000 and most went for Dole in 1996 (Perot factor). We looked into this last night here on DU.

So what else is there? Let's be real here - everyone is running around saying the fraud is proven. I'm sorry, it's not proven yet, not by a long shot.

So give me the best evidence ya got.

[StopThief]

1. Bush won.

nfm

[Reality Not Tin Foil]

2. Just shut up and believe in the Boogie Man!

That way we don't even have to try anymore. I mean what's the point? No matter how much we try, the Boogie Man WILL get us in the end!!

Sigh...

[Walt Starr]

3. Can't say that I've seen a shred of evidence to support the charges

of fraud.

:shrug:

Maybe everybody who's posted in this thread to this point needs to have their :tinfoilhat: refitted because we're all obviously being affected by Karl Rove's mind rays.

:evilgrin:

[CMO]

4. go to blackboxvoting.org

[Selatius]

5. Bush still won the popular vote

Even if we could show that the 130,000 vote margin between Bush and Kerry in Ohio was only because of voter fraud, it still won't change the fact that Kerry lost the popular vote by a larger margin than Bush did in 2000. We would have just had another case of the Electoral College going the exact opposite direction.

[Kazak]

8. Doesn't that article suggest...

that evidence indicates that returns from up to possibly 30 states could be fraudulent? If not, I read that somewhere...

[Reality Not Tin Foil]

11. The popular vote doesn't matter.

Of course it helps, but as we've seen, it simply doesn't matter where who becomes President is concerned.

[Hamlette]

6. circumstantial evidence, which is the best kind of evidence

The graph on the main page is pretty convincing to me. In the 10 states with paper ballots, the exit polls were within an average of 1% from the actual vote. AND twice the difference was in Bush's favor.

In the 8 states with no paper ballots (or some electronic voting) hence no paper trail the actual vote was an average of 6.5% higher than the exit polls.

In law school they used to tell this story: Mom bakes some chocolate cookies and tells her kids, Billy and Sally, not to eat them before dinner. After a time she goes into the kitchen, before dinner, and finds her two kids and an empty cookie jar. She says: "who ate the cookies." Billy says: "Sally ate the cookies. I saw her." That is direct evidence. An eyewitness. But there is more persuasive evidence. Billy is covered in chocolate. It's all over his face and hands. The same kind as in the cookies.

Who ate the cookies?

Circumstantial evidence is the best cause it can't lie.

We won't get far with it unless the media "gets it". But I think there was fraud and this is my first conspiracy theory. (I don't buy JFK and I don't buy 9/11)

[ROH]

10. JFK...

Re. JFK:
Didn't the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) state that there was a "probable conspiracy" in the JFK assassination?

[tjdee]

7. I am deeply skeptical about the exit polls all being wrong.

No one has satisfactorily answered why the exit polls were relied on right up until Florida 2000, among other things.

I don't know that voter fraud has been proven, but I'm not convinced by any means that Bush legitimately won. Does not compute.

[bagnana]

9. I thought I read the exit polls were not totally off

just the early exit polls? but that later ones appeared to be more in line with the actual numbers? I thought someone here received an e-mail from an AP rep saying just that?

[PurityOfEssence]

12. Exit polls seem pretty accurate where there's a paper trail, yet way off

where there isn't. THAT'S the huge whopper of a dead canary if it's true; if it is, it's in defiance of all probability.

This should be the tack taken by anyone claiming fraud--literally the first words out of his/her mouth--if it's the case. It's simple, scientific and easy to grasp, even if the listener is relatively uneducated.

If it is as it seems to be, the argument should go like this: 1) all unverifiable machines are controlled by Republicans and it's illegal to check their source code, 2) all reported discrepancies have benefitted Republicans, 3) exit polling is accurate where there is a paper trail, and way off in Bush's favor where it isn't and 4) Florida and Ohio were long-known as the deciders. That wasn't too hard, was it?