Free Press: Arkansas in 2004: Did Bush Really Win?

[AtLiberty]

Arkansas in 2004: Did Bush Really Win?

Max Standridge
The Free Press
January 24, 2005

Past Election Patterns, Pre-Election, Tracking and Exit Poll Patterns, Bill Clinton, Vote Discrepancies, Undervotes, and A "Convenient" Power Failure in Little Rock, All Combine to Suggest Otherwise

This report will be based on several categories of data, both historical and statistical in nature, which strongly suggest that John Kerry was making a showing in the American south in the 2004 election.

1. Past election patterns: A common myth the media have often deliberately or otherwise purveyed, has been that there is a "monolithic" South, in which all Southern states fall into a set pattern, with similar percentages of victory for Republicans versus non-Southerner Democratics. This pattern can be seriously challenged when one examines individual vote tallies in individual southern states, on a year-by-year basis. The most telling examples will be found in those election years in which the Republican supposedly "swept" the entire South, or virtually the entire South.

1972: Richard Nixon is supposedly re-elected as the first Republican President to carry the South. His vote patterns are described in the news media as representing a "realignment" of the entire South with conservative voting patterns. But serious problems begin to emerge when one examines certain Southern states, as to how votes are actually falling in various categories. For example, George Wallace's Alabama probably would not have been in Nixon's column, even had Wallace not been anywhere on the Democratic ticket, under normal circumstances. However, Wallace, at that time, was hospitalized in the wake of a shooting incident in a Florida mall while he'd been campaigning for the Democratic Presidential nomination.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1119

[Zynx]

1. There is a lot of nonsense in this article.

Not the least of which is when they say that Georgia was close enough to be recounted in 1984. Reagan got over 60% of the vote in Georgia. Also, in 1988 they say that Maryland was close enough for a recount when in fact Dukakis lost by three points or 50,000 votes. That does not qualify for recounts. Another batch of bad information is 1980 where they say Texas and Florida were "razor-close" when in fact Carter lost Texas by 13.86% and Florida by 17.02%.

[Goldeneye]

2. is this part a mistake?

"since Undecideds historically break 55-45 for Incumbents."

Good article. Weird how every swing or southern state except Pennsylvania(which Kerry had an exceptional lead in pre election) went to Bush.

[ISUGRADIA]

3. Shoddy analysis- one pt he mentions was Georgia in 84

"Georgia. Carter's home state was close enough as to be recountable in the vote tallies in a majority of the county-level tallies. The result could have been at least one Georgia Electoral vote going to the Mondale-Ferraro ticket. "

Reagan won the state with 60% of the vote; that is not close. Georgia does not allocate electoral votes individualy.

"in examining Texas returns, one sees that Bentsen's vote tallies in his race to return to the U.S. Senate, when compared to his tallies in the Vice-Presidential race, suggest that if even a portion of his Senate votes were counted as votes for his role as a Senator as a Vice-President, Texas was in the Democratic column."

uh...that's nice but you can't count senate votes for president. People were voting for Dukakis, not Bentsen for president.

The south, with a few exceptions is pretty much a Repub stronghold for now and the near future.

[Last Lemming]

10. If so..

why the power outage?

[Stevepol]

4. I can't speak for the analysis, but as long as DREs count

the votes, you can write off any southern state. GA is definitely in the Repub column forever. The results of the 02 election there were transparently fraudulent as shown in all the pre-election polling and the exit polls (before they were removed from the IT and from all access). 02 was also the first year that Diebold counted all the votes all the time, w/o audits, w/o recounts, w/o any eyeball ever seeing the paper that said who voted for who, w/o any way to assure yourself that the figures that were spit out were actually valid, nothing except blind faith in the virtual, as opposed to the real world.

DEMAND A VOTER-VERIFIED PAPER BALLOT AND AUDITS FOR ALL ELECTIONS

[imenja]

5. Dem's didn't even consider Arkansas a possibility in 2004

none except Bill Clinton. Suddenly the election there was supposedly stolen? This helps undermine claims of states where the election was seriously contested and questionable.

[Disfronted]

6. Flawed math

On October 20, 2004, a poll conducted by the University of Arkansas, an in-state polling organization, showed Bush at 47%, Kerry at 40%, but with a huge 10% Undecided column and a 3% Margin of Error. This poll, too, strongly suggests a Kerry lead, since Undecideds historically break 55-45 for Incumbents. With Kerry getting 4 1/2% of the Undecided vote, and most of the 3% Margin of Error, Kerry is at a 1/2% lead over Bush.

Maybe my math is off, but I don't see how this puts Kerry ahead. Let's see:

Bush 47%
Kerry 40%

Then he gives Bush 5.5% of undecided and 4.5% of undecided to Kerry

Bush 52.5%
Kerry 44.5%

Then he gives Kerry the entire 3% margin of error

Bush 52.5%
Kerry 47.5%

So Bush has a solid 5% lead, not a 1/2% Kerry lead.

And let me add this whole analysis is inane. I'm sure if we took random semi-close Kerry states (like California, Oregon. Michigan etc.), cherry picked the best polls (for Bush) from the dozens done, gave Bush the entire margin of error and most of the undecideds, we could have him ahead of Kerry.

But it would of course be meaningless, since there is no doubt Kerry won those states.

Given the obvious math errors, exagerrations and cherry picking of polls, I don't see how any of this article can be taken seriously.

[imenja]

7. that's really bad

You'd think he had gotten out his calculator.

[newyawker99]

14. Hi Disfronted!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[AtLiberty]

8. Sorry, folks...

We should write Free Press and alert them of the math issues.

[Hugin]

9. Speaking of math issues...

Is there anyone out there who believes that
someone who can only muster a 44% approval
rating can win a national election by 51%?

That fact alone is proof to me...

This election was stolen.

Q.E.D.

[Disfronted]

11. I do

I do, considering he was running against the anti-charisma in John Kerry and used unprecedented negative advertising to make his opponant seem lower than pond scum.

He knew the only way to win with his approval rating was to attack the Democratic candidate without honor or decency, which he did.

[Zynx]

12. A lot of polls had Bush's approval rating at around 50%.

[Moderator]

13. AtLiberty

Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
copyrighted news source.


Thank you.

DU Moderator