Please help me with the Arnebeck/Phillips case

[mostly_lurking]

Please excuse the plain text.  I'm trying to keep the columns
lined up.

The way I see how things have shaken out, the Arnebeck suit
represents the last, best hope for a change in the election
results.  As such, I'm trying to understand the
Arnebeck/Phillips position.  As I understand it, Phillips
asserts that three counties are very suspect based on a number
of factors.  Arnebeck zeros in on theses counties because of
the pattern differences between the votes for president and
supreme court justice (Connally).  Arnebeck believes that
65,000 votes were switched from Kerry to Bush in these three
counties, that, if corrected, would actually result in Kerry
winning Ohio by some 12,000 votes.  Good enough.

The three counties in question are all solid Republican
counties (Warren, Butler, and Clermont).  The theory is
Democrats will focus on vote suppression problems in Democrat
counties and "miss" the vote swapping in the
Republican counties.  OK, I can buy that as well.

Here's where my question, though, because I seem to be missing
something.  I've listed the three counties in question below,
including the vote totals for Bush, Kerry, and Gore for 2000
and 2004. The third column in each list is the percent of the
vote Bush received from those counties.  I summed the total
votes and averaged the percentage for each:

	 2004                    2000
         Bush    Kerry  Bush%    Bush   Gore   Bush%	
Butler	 109,866 56,234 66.14%	 86,587	46,390 65.11%
Warren	  68,035 26,043 72.32%	 48,318	19,142 71.62%
Clermont  62,946 25,885 70.86%	 47,129 20,927 69.25%
         ======= ====== ======   ====== ====== ======
	240,847	108,162	69.01%	182,034 86,459 67.80%

At first glance it looks as if the numbers for Bush are only
slightly higher (percentage wise) from 2000.  But if you
consider an increase for Bush results in a corresponding
decrease for Kerry, you see the percentage "spread"
goes to 2.06%, 2.80%, and 3.22%.  OK, I can see how those
changes could be suspicious.

But, I run into a snag when I adjust the three county totals
to re-flip the 65,000 votes from Bush back to Kerry.  To do
that, here are the results necessary (for the three counties
totaled together).  I also include the totals for 2000 as a
comparison:

	 2004 (Adjusted)          2000
         Bush     Kerry  Bush%    Bush   Gore   Bush%	
        175,847 173,162 50.38%	182,034 86,459 67.80%

That means that in these three heavily Republican counties
Bush would have to have received 6187 LESS votes than in 2000,
and Kerry would have had to receive 86,703 MORE votes than
Gore did in 2000.  Bush's percentage of the vote would have to
drop from 67.8% to 50.38% in these counties.

I sure hope Arnebeck has more than this.  I don't see how this
will convince a member of the Ohio SC to go out on a limb and
set aside the results of the election. Can anybody point out
what I may be missing? I have not seen any allegations (by
Arnebeck or Phillips) that the fraud was spread outside these
three counties.

[rockedthevoteinMA]

1. check out this link

Mostly Lurking

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x123298

Maybe this is some of the evidence Arnebeck has?

[mostly_lurking]

2. I'm not sure I understand just what the issue is here

But this is Cuyahoga county. WHat I have seen from Arnebeck is that Cuyahoga county is meant to be a "distraction" from the real fix (which was in southern Ohio).

[emcguffie]

3. I could be way off...

But I do think lots of republicans have become very disenchanted with the bush. you have to remember, kerry won, and I think he really won by a lot. There are Republicans who are true conservatives, and who are honest, for goodness sakes, who can't stand bush.

So, given the increased registration and turnout, I don't think it's inconceivable that Bush lost Republican votes, and Kerry got so many more. It seems to me that that would be in line with the exit polls.

Gee, wouldn't it be good if exit polls were done in one of these counties? Is there any way to get it, if there was? That could shed some light.

[mostly_lurking]

4. Is there anywhere else where such a huge shift occurred?

I can't see it only occurring in three counties in Ohio. There has to be something else here (or it may be time to hang it up).

[proudtobeadem]

6. Hey, how did you do the blue letters? I like it

[emcguffie]

7. blue letters

When you post, look at the HTML lookup table. so to make blue letters, you

text, and then

I just figured it out yesterday, I think. Since I'm not HTML proficient.

[proudtobeadem]

13. Cool, Thanks!

[proudtobeadem]

5. I don't know if you're missing

anything, but maybe re-calc with the 3rd party candidates might help.
I know that you're worried that Arnebeck won't be able to convince a judge with this -I would too, but he probably has someting up his sleeve. I personally am sure that the switching occured because a lot of repubs voted Kerry. Remeber repubs for Kerry?
The shrub has wasted more money than any other pres in the past, and true repubs are financially conservative.

[mostly_lurking]

9. Nader pulled just over 12,000 votes in 2000

In the 4 counties combined. I had already thought of that, but the numbers for the 3rd party candidates appear to be insignificant. I gues Nader didn't do too well in the heavily-Republican part of Ohio.

All the other candidates combined bring in only a few hundred votes.

If Arnebeck does have something more powerful he's doing a damn good job of keeping it secret! What really worries me is the delay... it's as if he's looking (or hoping?) for something to turn up...

[mostly_lurking]

8. Need to include Hamilton County, too...

I just read this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x123397

Arnebeck: "We build our challenge on statistical
anomalies which are not explainable in any other way than that
the voting was hacked and votes where moved from Kerry to Bush
in three or four counties in and around Cincinnati."

Interviewer: "Butler?"

Arnebeck: "Butler, Clermont, Warren and Hamilton."

(Note: I corrected some spelling errors).

Anyway, here are the tables including Hamilton county:

         Bush     Kerry             Bush    Gore	
Butler   109,866  56,234 66.14%     86,587  46,390 65.11%
Warren    68,035  26,043 72.32%     48,318  19,142 71.62%
Clermont  62,946  25,885 70.86%	    47,129  20,927 69.25%
Hamilton 222,404 199,499 52.71%    204,175 161,578 55.82%
         463,251 307,661 60.09%    386,209 248,037 60.89%
	
	 2004 (Adjusted)            2000
         Bush     Kerry  Bush%      Bush    Gore    Bush%	
        398,251 372,661 51.66%	  386,209  248,037  60.89%

When Hamilton is included, the Bush percentage of the total is
almost exactly what it was in 2000 (60.09% vs 60.89%).  The
final numbers needed to re-flip the 65,000 votes from Bush to
Kerry are more believable but still require a considerable
leap -- Bush's total increases by 12,042 but Kerry's has to
increase by 124,624 (ten times as much).  Even if you factor
in Nader in 2000 it's a stretch (Nader got a total of 12,315
votes in these 4 counties combined).

Arnebeck had better have something else.  I have heard a lot
of optimism on this forum around Arnebeck... doesn't anybody
know of anything else he may have in the pike?

I *don't* want to have to rest any remaining hopes in Bev,
Madsen, or Curtis.

[mary195149]

10. Anabeck says

experts all over the country/world have looked at these numbers and don't see them as being possible. I am sure when they release their data it will make sense.

[mostly_lurking]

11. Link, please!

Where does he say that?

[mary195149]

14. I've tried to search for it.

It was a radio station I tuned into on the web towards the end of last week but can't find it. Someone on DU had posted the link.

[Snivi Yllom]

12. I have said it before

There is nothing here folks. Where is the controvery?