ILLINOIS 2004 Results (Or how we create reality for you to study)

[RaulVB]

Illinois results compared with the 2000 numbers are just amazing and curious.

Back then the results were:

GORE (D) : 2.589.026 votes (55%)
BUSH (R) : 2.019.421 votes (43%)

In 2004 we have:

KERRY (D) : 2.866.307 (55%)
BUSH (R) : 2.336.253 (45%)

Yep, you got that RIGHT.

In a year of turmoil, where the Republican party of Illinois is all but dead, when Bush was polling worst than in 2000, he "gains" 317.000 new votes respect to 2000, and Kerry, a better candidate than Gore, just "gains" 277.000 votes.

So, among new voters BUSH "WON" ILLINOIS 51% TO 49%, roughly.

Startling numbers, indeed.

Let's look at the Senate race now:

OBAMA (D) : 3.555.586 votes. (70%)
KEYES (R) : 1.376.044 votes. (27%)

Before you start yelling at me, I now someting about "cross vote" or "vote for the man not for the party" Political Science 101 type of rationale.

What is interesting here is that Keyes, a very bad candidate that was to the right of Adolf Hitler, performs as expected, very poorly.

The republicans did not like him and defected in mass to Obama. Great.

The problem is that Obama lost a primary about 6 years ago within the Democratic party and he is to the left of Kerry in many issues.

That capacity of the Illinois's voter to discriminate that way, tells me that they have a high degree of sophistication, pattern that does not match the American political reality. These voters don't leave the Senate choice in blank, they go and vote for the "lefty" Obama.

But, at the same time, they like Bush more than Kerry, right?, and they go back to vote for the Republican Presidential ticket.

OK, I think the DNC strategists will have their "hands full" in Illinois during the future because that is a case that requires study, you would think.

Well, I disagree.

I found out that Illinois uses the "optical voting system" in a large number of counties. No paper trail, of course:

http://www.elections.state.il.us/VoteInfo/pages/VotingEquip.htm

So, what else can I tell you, I think is clear that the "mandate" can be easily explained by this type of "statistical wonders."

Is the "Rovian" philosophy at its best. We will tamper with the vote in states where you expect to win so you will not care. Then we will tamper the vote in the South, in those states where you gave up early your option!

Is a simple and "brilliant" strategy.

"We create reality so you can study it later..."

"Then, when you're done with that, you'll have to study the new reality we created while you were busy with the old one..."

Amazingly simple, indeed.

[neversaynever]

1. I challenge ANYONE to find the "45%" of

people in Illinois who voted for Bush.

Who knows, they may be downstate, but they sure as hell are NOT in chicago.

Where the hell are all these Republicans HIDING? They keep talking about 59 million republicans. WHERE ARE THEY?


:shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

[RaulVB]

2. "Where are those 59 millions of Republicans?"

To be brutally honest, I don't think they ever existed in the first place!

We are the witnesses of electoral fraud ON A MASSIVE SCALE.

The criminals have decided to go for it because the "burden of proof" would be on the "losing" side, faction that includes many "doubters" and people that think the system "works."

It is a "brilliant" plot!

[neversaynever]

4. that was my point. exactly. they never existed

that means we ARE de facto the majority, so we have numbers on our side.

I doubt that 30 Million voted for the Shrub.

Interestingly enough, in my conversations with just everyday people--you know, store clerks, checkout guys, just average joes -- they all say the same thing : "it don't make sense. it don't add up. even the traditional republicans were against him."

it's complete and total fiction. mind-boggling.

[RaulVB]

7. Exactly!

It needs to be this big so it would esentially impossible to digest for "the true believers on the system."

You can see the reaction:

"No, that's not possible, they wouldn't do something like that..."

Yeah, right!

[neversaynever]

12. Yep. And that's how most of my (white liberal) dem friends

respond: there's a certain sense of embarrassment in acknowledging the fact that anyone could be bamboozled to this degree.

Not that race matters (facetious: it DOES), but most Blacks and minorities I know have NO problem believing this happened.

Guess we're used to the shit, huh?

I think a lot of white liberals are now getting the shock of their lifetimes--aha, so this is how the world really works?

(cf. Cornel West's comments on how 9/11 represented the "niggerization" of America).

[Can o Beans]

3. I was an Election Judge in Peoria

And (I can't say too much here - don't ask any questions) I can assure you that over 80% of my precinct went solid red.

[MRKARNO]

5. I think you're misreading the scene in Illinois

Illinois voters simply did not see Keyes as a viable candidate for Senate, even among Republicans. The Republican "leadership" in the state wouldnt even endorse Keyes. Most people who voted for Obama probably arent as to the left end of the political spectrum as he is, but everyone saw Keyes as an absolute joke of a candidate and Obama as a rising star who would do a lot of good for the state of Illinois.

[RaulVB]

9. Already explained

Keyes is and was a joke.

A "right wing nut". Then, those very "educated and principled" republican voters "jumped in" with the lefty Obama instead of leaving the vote in blank, just because they felt like voting for senator...

Nonsense, IMO!

As I said, is a bit more "complex" tan that.

[neversaynever]

13. At the bud billiken parade on South Side Chicago

Keyes was BOOOED. Loudly.

You know the Maher joke about that don't ya?

What are the three things the Republicans can't find?

WMD
Osama bin Laden

A black man in the city of Chicago!

[xray s]

6. Huh?

I found out that Illinois uses the "optical voting system" in a large number of counties. No paper trail, of course:


I hate to break your bubble, but the Optiscan voting system in Illinois DOES leave a paper trail.

[jhgatiss]

8. Agreed. We're not talking DREs here. n/t

[RaulVB]

10. Not breaking any "bubble"

Thanks for the info. I am looking at voting patterns, not "bubbles."

[In Truth We Trust]

11. Great post thanks for taking the time to share it

I wouldn't use the word "Brilliant" though. Try criminal.

[neversaynever]

14. good point. There's no such thing as "evil genius"

it oxmoronic, a contradiction in terms -- which is why I think Raul put it in "scare quotes" --right?

[RaulVB]

18. Right!

Thanks.

[theboss]

15. This type of analysis is pretty much worthless

Unless you can prove that there was not an increase in voter turnout, I don't know what these numbers prove. You are essentially arguing that Rove fed half a million fake ballots into the system in order to shrink Bush's margin of defeat by 40,000 votes. Yet somehow he gave Kerry 250,000 of those fake votes.

And he somehow did this in Illinois under the watchful eye of the Daley familiy - who could probably still find 100,000 votes in the trunk of one of their cars if we asked.

[RaulVB]

16. Looking at electoral patterns

It is kind of clear, if you read the original post.

If is worthless for you, find something more "useful" to read.

Thanks for your comments.

[theboss]

19. It's not a pattern; it's two years

You've revealed that Bush went from a 12-point loss to a 10-point loss in a year with much higher turnout. What's the pattern? The Obama Race is a fairly useless indicator of anything since the Repubs ran a muppet against him.

[RaulVB]

17. BTW,

I didn't know that Daley was "the mayor of Illinois state."

[Hobbes199]

20. 11 Million were stolen across the nation

Just like that. And as someone above said, show me 45% that would vote for Bush almost _anywhere_, IL, WA, CA, I don't think so.

[mopinko]

21. why was alan keyes on the ballot? simple

because there was no gay marriage amendment on the ballot in il. i couldn't figure this out until i saw the masterful plan of those referenda. not brilliant that it brought out their voters, just that it gave them a smokescreen to explain the "win"
i think illinois stunk myself. i think christine cegalis was robbed. and there were SSSSOOOOOOOO many kerry republicans. he should have had at least 60% of the vote. but, they helped their congressmen, and they padded the popular vote.