2004 Election Numbers

[BeFree]

There were at least 20 million new voters that came out in 2004 versus 2000.

According to the numbers we have lived with now for 3 and a half years, 12 million of those new voters came out to support Bush, and only 8 million of those new voters came out for Kerry.

I find that harder and harder to believe.

Gosh, do you think that maybe, just maybe, the voting machines had a series of *glitches* that made it look like Bush won?

I do, more and more everyday.

[racaulk]

1. I have thought that since November 3, 2004.

I will never be convinced that * has a shred of legitimacy to the title of POTUS.

[iamthebandfanman]

2. yup

actually ohio was very similar to what happened in florida in 2000...

even the same state government make up...
guy in charge of elections in ohio was a republican and in charge of the ohio bush campaign...
girl was in charge of elections in florida and was a republican and in charge of the florida campaign.

helluva coincidence.

[Botany]

3. Ohio lost more jobs than any other state from 2000 -2004

and yet it voted for bush?

Bush picked up 19 million votes from 2000 to 2004
he had to get 70%+ of the new vote, 70%+ of the
undicieded vote and not one person from 2000 could
have died, not voted, or switched his/her vote from bush
to Kerry.

BTW the media knows these #s and have killed this story.

[BeFree]

6. Not dead yet

It is so simple. Too simple maybe. Especially for al the knuckleheads who think Bush really won over the hearts and minds of all those laid off and otherwise disguted folks.

There was a 20% new voter turnout. The largest 4 year increase ever in my lifetime, and those new voters did NOT come out to vote for that miserable failure. No F'N way.

[OnTheOtherHand]

4. funny, all the numbers I've seen say they broke for Kerry

Where do you get your "information," anyway?

OK, have fun with that.

[BeFree]

5. Oh yeah,

I remember your position. That new voters broke for Kerry, but the 3.5M margin that carried Bush came from Gore 2000 voters who turned away from the democrats and voted for Bush in 2004.

You still believe that, don't you? You just said so again they broke for Kerry so you are saddled with the outlandish statement that over 3 million 2000 Gore voters turned and voted for Bush 2004.

Incredible.

[OnTheOtherHand]

7. what number of Gore voters do you thnk voted for Bush?

And why? I've presented my case. Where's yours?

[BeFree]

8. Answer the question:

Are you the one who thinks Bush won in 2004 on the backs of voters who switched from Gore 2000 to Bush 2004?

Because if you believe that the new 2004 voters broke for Kerry, (as stated above) then out of the year 2000 voters Bush garnered at least 4 million year 2000 Gore voters than switched from Bush to Kerry.

Ridiculous. And to hell with that link of yours. If I can't question the author of that trash personally, then it ain't worth a damn to me or anyone.

[OnTheOtherHand]

9. you're contradicting yourself, not for the first time

If you think it's trash, then presumably the only value you see in asking questions is to disrupt. That's your privilege. But you haven't offered a reasonable basis for your opinion.

That noted: I think Bush got over 60 million votes, and a bunch of them came from people who voted for Gore in 2000. I wouldn't say he did it on their backs in particular; that's your distracting editorial gloss.

As I've pointed out many times, the 2000-2004 National Election Study panel survey actually directly supports my belief that considerably more Gore 2000 voters voted for Bush than Bush 2000 voters voted for Kerry. Of course it doesn't prove it. But I think it's obscurantist to whistle past that evidence.

[BeFree]

10. Of course

"...it doesn't prove it... that evidence"

Evidence that doesn't prove anything? Is that all you've got?

You're the one who is whistling. Geez.

[OnTheOtherHand]

11. You claim certainty; I don't.

You offer dogma; I offer inferences. Or, to put it differently, I offer "evidence that doesn't prove anything"; you offer vapor, loudly.

[BeFree]

12. That's all you got?

Through all these years, all we've gotten from you, Mr. Hand, is evidence that doesn't prove a damn thing. Nothing stolen, or anything to worry about. Here we have numbers that show Bushco garnered more votes than is plausible and that the machines plausibly gathered those votes and all we get from the likes of you is that we are wrong to think that all the accumulated evidence of fraud should be ignored because you, the professor, infers we are wrong.

Shoot man, you haven't convinced anyone to stand with you. Except maybe for those who think America did, indeed, vote to put bushco back in office. But the rest of us have been proven quite right by the scrapping of the touchscreens by SoS's and legislatures across this land and even, almost, the congress. And the congress will, one day. We've seen to that.

So tell us Mr. Inference, what hand have you played in all that except to discourage and obfuscate our victories?

[OnTheOtherHand]

13. whom are you trying to convince of what?

You can keep misrepresenting my positions until the cows come home. Cui bono? Do you think that the ER forum is thriving under your tender mercies?

[BeFree]

14. We are a force to be reckoned with.

We are reforming elections, no thanks to you, eh?

[OnTheOtherHand]

15. "we"?

Again, fundamental problem: your "we" is small, which is why you can't even figure out whether someone as committed as Wilms belongs. I know you can't see it. I might as well be trying to communicate in interpretive dance.

[BeFree]

16. We

Meaning... not you. Wilms, maybe. I dunno, can't figure that one out. But I got your number.

We as in the hundreds here who have recognized the problem. Accepted that elections have been and will be stolen by the machines and have put forward efforts to counteract the onslaught. Yes, we.

We are a force to be reckoned with. You, not so much. An irritant, yes, but we've overcome that, eh?

[OnTheOtherHand]

17. no, you haven't managed to write us out of the election integrity movement

We, the hundreds who don't trust TruthIsAll as far as we could throw him, but care about election integrity anyway. It's fascinating that you want to eliminate us, but it ain't gonna happen.