The Nashua Advocate Tries to Resolve Apparent K-E Statement Discrepancies

[nashuaadvocate]

Links for the story are forthcoming, but the story is up at

http://nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/

I thought it might be of interest to you all.

Best wishes,

The News Editor
The Nashua Advocate
http://nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/

[righteous1]

1. I don't think anything has changed

K/E have worked in the background since Nov 2nd. Unless incontrovertable proof is forthcoming they are not jumping on the bandwagon, lest they look like sore losers and fools. So many people are hoping for a result that they fall for hype from a few people that shall remain nameless and don't keep a clear head. Bottom line, if significant fraud occurred it will be found, if not, it won't

[dalloway]

2. Great article!

I have to concur with much of your analysis, especially your final conclusions. Thanks for getting this out there for people.

:kick:

[keepthemhonest]

3. Thank you

for you helping those of use that are legally challenged. I will have to read through it again, but I like your take on it so far.

The talent here on Du is so varied and invaluable. Thanks

[GetTheRightVote]

4. I believe that fraud has been uncovered and that Kerry will be jumping

on it and I hope when all this happens that he does not forget the little people who helped him to get into the WH and has an open house with BQ for us all. I must remain hopeful that all will be well as long as we stick together and demand our rights as voters. Putnum (buzzflash) is now putting out the news of our stolen election and more will jump onto the band wagon as well, its starting to grow.

:bounce:

[Patsy Stone]

5. Darling...

Where WERE you last night? LOL!
Thanks for letting me say, "Oh, boy! Right, again!"
Patience pays, silence pays, strategery pays.

Nothing I love more than logic with a side order of faith! :)

[seito]

17. Love ya Patsy

I'll second all that and take an extra side of perseverance.

No Retreat No Surrender

[Patsy Stone]

18. XOXO -- Also just got this: Not hidin' nufin'...

------------------------------------------------------
Tonight on Countdown
------------------------------------------------------

* Keeping his Mouth Shut: Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, who declared President Bush the official winner in Ohio, is seeking a court order to keep himself from being interviewed as part of a court challenge of the Nov. 2 vote.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/2004/la-na-briefs28.1dec28,1,6834191.story?coll=la-news-elect2004

[IndyOp]

6. Good post ---

While I would like to fast-forward to saying that we know that the fraud was sufficient to overturn the election, we don't yet have proof.

I have belief and determination - and because I'm not the candidate I get to say that aloud.

:-)

[rox63]

7. This makes sense to me

This makes sense to me, especially in light of Kerry's usual methodical, low-key way of doing things. Good analysis, nashuaadvocate. Thanks for posting it.

[lavendermist]

8. I am impressed..

with your cogent analysis of the situation. Certainly is positive and gives us a lot of hope. :thumbsup:

:kick:

[merh]

9. I do thank you for this wonderful, logical analysis.

It's that "nuanced" thing that has folks off balance. You explained it all so well. Thanks! :hi: :toast:

[Acryliccalico]

12. Thank you for this post

:thumbsup:

[buddysmellgood]

10. Silver Platter: Kerry must make a show of force regardless.

"Only a very great fool would fail to do so, or fail to recognize that Kerry -- whatever he is or is not -- is not nearly foolish enough, or insufficiently ambitious enough, to pass up the Presidency of the United States if, at some future point, it is handed to him on a proverbial silver platter."

If Kerry does not stand up and make a case for fraud in Ohio, many will work against him in '08. I will show up at his events with faux knives sticking out of my back.

[tgnyc]

11. A great analysis, but

the bottom line is that Kerry has already abdicated his right to claim the presidency under any circumstances. The opposition to his doing so, even in the face of obvious and reported fraud, has no chance of being "localized," since the entire nation has long-since absorbed what they believe to be the unassailable reality that Bush won. The revulsion to Kerry's stepping up at the 11th hour to claim anything would be massive and powerful. And because he has done nothing publicly to promote even a public review of the problems reported in Ohio, he is losing what's left of his opportunity to promote stronger elections in general.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[davidgmills]

15. Unfortunately, I think this article has the situation about right.

I am a lawyer and I have felt for some time that the legal avenues were just not sufficient at present to get the ball rolling down hill fast enough to do any good.

The big difference between 2000 and 2004 is that in 2000, the tallied votes between Bush and Gore in Florida were 500 votes or so apart. Any moron could see that a recount could swing the election. The press was all over it.

Not so in 2004. There is still a 100,000+ spread between Bush and Kerry in the "tallied" Ohio votes.

There is no evidence whatsoever, other than the exit polls, to indicate that Kerry could have won Ohio or the election. The results of the present exit polls of Ohio are subject to attack and even Mitofsky is not willing to vouch for them.

Without really concrete evidence that Kerry could have won the election, the judges will give the lawsuits a ho-hum response. In 2000, the media, because the election was clearly in doubt and was daily news, put all kinds of pressure upon the courts to do something and do it expeditiously. They did.

I have been saying for two weeks now that judges will view all litigation from a "harmless error" point of view. First, elections aren't perfect. Secondly, if there were mistakes or errors or fraud, they will need some clear and convincing proof that would indicate these mistakes or errors rose could have caused the outcome of the election to be in doubt.

I have suggested for two weeks now that there there seemed to me to be only one way one might get enough clear and convincing evidence to get the courts to listen and actually have "real" litigation as opposed to "apparent" litigation. A second re-exit polling of about 16,000 voters of Ohio that clearly shows Kerry won Ohio.

Without it, or some evidence that equates to it, I see the litigation going nowhere. I hope I am wrong, but that is my 2 cents.

[Sparkly]

16. Couldn't it start with "harmless error" and proceed from there?

Of *course* it's hard to make a certain claim right now that there were enough votes to swing the election. It seems to me the inquiry has to begin with evidence that IS there, for the sake of prosecuting any wrongdoing. If in the process of discovering tampering or other fraud, it's discovered that enough votes could have been switched or withheld to change the election, *then* wouldn't it proceed from there?

In other words, it seems to me it has to stay sort of "under the radar" right now. We just want all the votes counted, we just want public confidence in the results (and we're sure Mr. Bush does too, haha), we just want to ensure the process is accurate and fair in future, etc.. If they started hollering "fraud" now, the Repugs would be all over it with organized angry-white-men protests like in Florida 2000, Fox and hate radio screeching that Democrats were trying to "steal" it, you know the rest. If they did that now, it'd be overkill. ("What's their problem?" Democrats would calmly reply. "We're only trying to check out some problems, we know B* won...")

Anyway, I am not a lawyer, so I'm asking. Shouldn't they go one step at a time -- proceed to gather evidence they CAN gather to prosecute what they CAN prosecute now, and in the process perhaps show the election could have been corrupted to the point that its results were inaccurate?

[davidgmills]

19. Possibly but....

it will probably die on the vine. If you want really good discovery, you need the judge to be on your side and hammering the hell out of the opposition. If he doesn't, they will stonewall the hell out of you. To get the judge's attention, you have to have him believing that your case probably will make a difference in the outcome of things. If the judge believes that the possiblity for making a difference is slight, he's likely not to give you much help.

But a really good legitimate exit poll which shows Kerry won or should have won, changes the dynamics. Especially with what has happeneed in the Ukraine. A judge will see the double standard instantly if the Republicans start to argue that a really legitimate poll was flawed.

To me, a solid exit-poll is nothing but a very valid check of the system. If it does not check out, it throws up a red flag and people are almost obligated to check the system out.

Suppose for example the news tomorrow was that three highly respected pollsters, Zogby, Harris and Gallup had, in a joint venture for the good of the country, polled 16,000 voters in Ohio and found that they had voted for Kerry 52% to Bush's 48%? Suppose they also said their poll was accurate within 1%.

What would happen when the news got out? Not only will the media be covering it but any judge would instantly take a different viewpoint on the case. Would Kerry then look like a sore loser if he got active in the lawsuit? Would what Conyers is doing be taken seriously? Might some senators balk on January 6? I think the answer to all of these questions is yes.

Did the Ukraine elections get set aside for any reason other than the exit polls? No.

In hindsight, I think one of the major mistakes of the 2000 election is that extremely accurate exit polls weren't taken. If the Supreme Court of the US was faced with extremely accurate exit polls of Florida that showed Gore won by 2%, maybe they would not have decided the way they did. Judges are political animals. It would have been a much tougher decision for the moderate voices on the court.

[nashuaadvocate]

20. David, fantastic point...!

...in fact, it's a shame no one in the K-E campaign, or the Greens, or the Libertarians, thought of paying for a new exit poll. Couldn't they raise money and do that right now? Maybe you should e-mail or call the Green Party? Yes, exit polls are expensive, but the Greens have already raised boatloads of money and I *know* people would contribute to a do-or-die exit poll...the longer the Greens wait, the less accurate such a poll would be.

Couldn't this be done within 72 to 96 hours?

I heard a rumor that the Voting Rights Institute/DNC investigation coming next month (but technically "starting" this week) will involve polling experts...hmmm...could they be thinking what you're thinking?

The News Editor
The Nashua Advocate
http://nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/

[davidgmills]

23. RE-exit Poll

As far as I know no one has made any suggestion to do this. In hindsight, it seems so odd, for weeks before the election, fifteen or twenty different pollsters were coming out with polls, many daily.

After the election -- none.

I would think two or three major polling groups could do 16,000 people in a couple days.

I have chosen this number of 16,000 because informed (conservative right wing) people on Mystery Pollster say that is how many it would take to get accuracy to 1%. I think anything less than 1% would not be accurate enough.

I am told it would not be unbearably expensive. I proposed this to MoveON two weeks ago and have heard nothing.

I think Zogby would be interested. He called the election for Kerry at 5pm on election day. I know he feels screwed. Unfortunately, I think he would be biased so that he shouldn't do the whole thing by himself. Harris has been good. He still has credibility. Gallup lost his credibility with the democrats but of course thatmeans he has credibility with Republicans. That is why I thought it should be a joint project.

Unfortunately, I am not getting anywhere with my idea. I guess I just don't have the right connections and the clock is ticking.

[Karmadillo]

25. How do you define "unbearably expensive"?

Your idea sounds like a very good one. I would think the Dean/Kerry internet money machine could come up with the funds to finance a Zogby/Harris/Gallup re-exit poll. While I'm not one of them, there would seem to be people around here who have the connections you need to start ball polling--rolling--I meant rolling, honest. A few credible sponsors and a good website should do it assuming you're not talking mega-millions. AAR and Sirius Talk Left hosts should be happy to push the issue.

[davidgmills]

27. I don't think you're talking

Mega Millions. When I proposed this idea on Mystery Pollster, several people were intrigued. Someone suggested a cost of $500,000. Someone else said less. Did they know what they were saying? I'm clueless really.

Someone also said that student exit polling gets a better response. That would be cheap, but I wonder whether it would have the clout and wonder whether it would be subject to charges of unprofessionalism.

My inclination is to go with the big guys if it could be afforded.

[sharman]

29. I've been saying the same thing

It seems so obvious. If only for my own peace of mind, I really want to see this done.

I would also suggest that (in addition to a random state-wise poll of actual voters) a few suspicious precincts, and/or precincts representative of blue, red and purple persuasions, should get 100% canvassed. That's a 100% check on the official vote accuracy, in a couple key microcosms.

It's mind-boggling that these same voters were called, canvassed, door-knocked and virtually fitted with tracking devices by dozens of GOTV groups before the election--but with the urgent question of possible fraud hanging out there--no one picks up a phone?

I would like to see this question asked of someone, anyone, close to the recount, or Arnebeck, et al

[ivorysteve]

21. Kick!

Great analysis. A must read for Kerry-bashers here.

[Eloriel]

22. Nice analysis -- right up until

the last 2 paragraphs:

But if the story shifts, Kerry will pounce.

Only a very great fool would fail to do so,...

Well, then, may I present to you a very great fool (as demonstrated by his behavior so far, AFAIC)?

... or fail to recognize that Kerry -- whatever he is or is not -- is not nearly foolish enough, or insufficiently ambitious enough, to pass up the Presidency of the United States if, at some future point, it is handed to him on a proverbial silver platter.

Yes, well the operative word in this part of the paragraph is "if." IF it is handed to him on a proverbial silver platter, which it definitely will NOT be. There is no mechanism in place at this point, and Kerry/Edwards have done everything in their power, it seems to me, whether intentionally or not, to quell any possibility of having some mechanism in place and actually using it which might hand the presidency over to someone other than Bush.

There may not even be a challenge to the Electors, for example -- and if there is, what would come of it? Nothing. (That's not to say I think it's inappropriate for a challenge to happen -- I think they should've been challenged in 2001 as well. It's just that it won't change the outcome.)

[Verve]

24. Thank you. Great analysis! n/t

[Kellis]

26. .

Thanks for posting~:kick:

[keepthemhonest]

28. night crew check this out

:kick:

[Straight Shooter]

30. I particularly like this paragraph:

4. The Kerry-Edwards ticket recognizes that it benefits enormously from the fact that progressives are independently investigating the 2004 election, and that certain members of Congress may soon or have already initiated their own investigations. However, the ticket will also do absolutely nothing to acknowledge self-appointed progressive investigators. Ever. In fact, the campaign will distance itself from these progressives while politely acknowledging, and even encouraging -- to the extent politically feasible -- the investigative efforts of Congressional members. Privately, however, the ticket will gently encourage and even, on occasion, seek information from progressive activists and investigators.

I keep reminding people how Rove and Little Boots just sat back and let Buckhead and the fraggots (freeper maggots) do all their dirty work for them as they tore down Rather and discredited the memo, even though the contents of the memo were true.

Now, of course, we live in an era where what's good for the goose is good for the goose and the gander can take a flying leap. But all the same, why shouldn't K/E take advantage of this army of good citizens who are interested in fair elections and the preservation of democracy. If we are all that stand between democracy and a country run by reactionaries, so be it.

[keepthemhonest]

31. I liked his maxims

He gives a concise break down of what is ging on right now.