"Scoop"/Autorank: Zogby – Voters Question Outcome of ’04 Election

[autorank]

Monday, 25 September 2006, 1:25 pm (NZ)


Link: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0609/S00346.htm
Print version: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/print.html?path=HL0609/S00346.htm

ZOGBY POLL:
VOTERS QUESTION OUTCOME OF 2004 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Only 45% of Voters “Very Confident”
Bush Won Election “fair and square”

Michael Collins
Part II of a II Part Series (Part I)
“Scoop” Independent News
Washington, DC

At their lowest points of popularity, do you recall anyone who claimed that Presidents’ Carter and Nixon stole their elections or that they didn't’t win fair and square? Did any analysts or activist groups clam massive election fraud in the elections that brought these ultimately very unpopular presidents to office?

How confident are you that George Bush really won the 2004 presidential election? If you are a typical American voter and you have doubts, how did those doubts arise? A mid August Zogby Poll of 1018 likely voters answered the first of these two very important questions (The author was a contributing sponsor for the survey.)

How confident are you that George W. Bush really won the 2004 presidential election?

Very confident that Bush won fair and square -- 45.2%
Somewhatconfident that Bush won fair and square -- 20.0
Not at all confident that he won fair and square -- 32.4
Other/not sure -- 2.4

This is a remarkable result. Nearly two years into the second term of his presidency, less than half of those polled think that the 2004 election victory was “fair and square.” 20% say they are “somewhat” confident, which is hardly an endorsement of legitimacy. Webster’s defines “somewhat” as follows: “…in some degree or measure: SLIGHTLY.“ This does not exactly qualify as an endorsement of a critical democratic process. The 32% who are “not at all confident” represent a huge portion of the population believing that Bush failed to win without cheating. Combining “not at all confident” with “somewhat” “slightly”, according to Webster’s, produces a category of 52% who “doubt” the legitimacy of the election. Altogether, these results are a clear vote of no confidence.


Combining “not confident at all” and “somewhat” (“in some degree measure: SLIGHTLY”) produces a category of “Doubts.” This gives a clear picture on legitimacy versus illegitimacy issue.


Survey Excel file available here.

Those who doubt: Not at all confident that he won fair and square - 32%

Fifty nine percent of Democrats, 5% of Republicans, and 34% of independents comprise the group with no confidence in a Bush win. Dividing the group by race shows that 54% of Asians and 71% percent of African Americans have serious doubts in the legitimacy of the election, along with 25% of whites and 37% of Latinos. Thus, a majority of Asian and African American voters lack confidence in the president’s legitimacy to rule while significant numbers of whites and Latinos do as well.

Groups thought to be in the hip pocket of the Republican administration show no confidence at a significant rate. NASCAR fans doubt the election results at a rate of 28% and born again Christians at 25%. Those in rural areas and the suburbs show some real doubt with rates of 28% and 29% respectively demonstrating a significant level of doubt. Members of the armed forces were right at the survey average with 32% questioning the legitimacy of the election.

The geographical distribution of no confidence was mildly surprising: East, 44%; South 30%; Central States/Great Lakes 24%; and West35%. Given the strength of the Republican Party in the South and relative strength of Democrats in the Central States/Great Lakes, this outcome stands out.

Those who without doubt: Very confident that Bush won fair and square - 45%”

Fifteen percent of Democrats, 80% of Republicans, and 39% of independents comprise the group that is very confident that Bush won fair and square. Dividing that group by race shows that 39% of Asians and 9% percent of African Americans are very confident in the legitimacy of the election, along with 51% of whites and 38% of Latinos. Central States/Great Lakes comprise 54% of this group with the South at 46%.. The West comprises 42% with the East accounting for just 32% of likely voters.

Whites, 51%, born again Christians, 58%, and people with household incomes over $100,000 are at the top of those very confident in a legitimate election. Only 54% of the rural population was very confident in a legitimate election. This may reflect the significant decrease in rural support for Bush in 2004 when compared to the 2000 election. All of these figures in the low fifties indicate that even among core constituencies, there are barely a majority of voters with a high degree of confidence that the election was legitimate.

Those in between: Somewhat confident that Bush won fair and square - 20%

Democrats and Independents, at 24% and 22% respectively, out number Republicans at 14%. Those who said that they were “somewhat confident” in the legitimacy of the election were evenly distributed around the country with only 3% separating the lowest reporting region, the South at 19%, and the West at 21%, which was the highest. Born again Christians come in at 15% percent, while non sectarians report at a rate of 19%.

The “in betweens” show less difference than the “very confident” and the “not confident at all” responders among the various subgroups polled.


Where they live: confidence by location



Those with “doubts are more likely to live in a large city. But nearly half in rural areas show “doubts.”



The Importance of this Survey

Why are these results important? The notion of legitimacy is central to political systems and central to the ability of an elected leader to rule effectively.(although a low level of legitimacy can allow a ruler to stay in power for a period). The vast majority of the public, regardless of political leanings, needs to confer legitimacy through a belief that those elected were elected fair and square. Significant numbers doubting basic legitimacy create major problems for those “elected” and for stability in the system. The result of only 45% trusting the system arises in a news environment in which the main stream media simply refuses to doubt the fairness or the 2004 election and studiously avoids any charges of outright election fraud and a corrupted result.

How the doubts arose will require more research. The response to other Zogby Poll questions in the same survey provides a major hint. 60% of American voters believe that tampering with only one machine can alter the outcome of an entire election. Nearly 80% oppose the use of secret, vendor-only computer code to run voting machines. Plus an amazing 92% of respondents said that they want the right to watch votes being counted and the right to make inquires of election officials regarding vote counting. They want that right because it belongs to them but also, I argue, because they doubt the process and the checks and balances. These doubts about the election occur at the same time there is doubt about the outcome and interact to reinforce each other.

Grave doubts exist about the 2004 presidential election in Ohio and elsewhere. Questions are asked primarily by mathematicians who cannot tolerate a seeming suspension of the lawsof mathematics for one day only, November 2, 2004, voting rights activists who witnessed voter suppression and election irregularities at an extraordinary rate, and ordinary citizens whose civic concern was awakened by the 2000 Supreme Court selection and the 2004 election that defied all logic.

Despite the productivity of election fraud researchers and voting rights advocates, very little attention has been given to questions of election fraud by the corporate media. The significant vote of no confidence expressed by a representative sample of 1018 likely voters was driven by several factors: from information gained through channels other than corporate media or due to a general distrust of the president based on his behavior and actions or a combination of these and other factors.

What does this mean? Some preliminary thoughts.

This survey elaborates another Zogby Poll conducted in Pennsylvania and sponsored by OpEdNews.Com. In that survey, 39% of Pennsylvania residents indicated that they thought that 2004 Presidential election was stolen. In the current survey, a middle category was created to capture those with doubts, only “somewhat confident” that Bush won fair and square. By creating that category in this national poll of likely voters, those who doubt legitimacy increased 13 percentage points to 52% while those likely to share the sentiment that 2004 was stolen, dropped from the Pennsylvania 39% to the national sample of 32%.

At this point, the Bush Presidency is an illegitimate one, lacking in the necessary consensus to rule with any degree of confidence by the people. We have entered the Potemkin Village of democracy where the façade of legitimacy is nothing more than a Hollywood back lot. This is the inescapable conclusion from this poll of likely voters.

Combining “not at all’ and “somewhat” responders, over half of American voters have doubts about the election, with a third of the total survey expressing serious doubts about the outcome of the election. Despite what the script writers at ABC and the other networks weave into the nightly network indoctrination, there is a vast distrust of this president and this administration; a distrust so profound that it includes a belief that the president wasn’t even re-elected in 2004.

Corporate Media: Asleep at the Switch

There won’t be much discussion of this Zogby poll by corporate media reporters and pundits. If it occurs, it might go something like this: “Most Americans confident in 2004 Election;” “Bush Still Solid with the People;” “Core Groups Support Outcome of 2004 Election.” Of course, none of those headlines will appear. For one or a multitude of reasons, the American corporate media has studiously ignored any controversy concerning election 2004. To discuss questions of legitimacy in public would entail raising the question of a stolen election. It won’t happen but it should. .

If we assume that this data is actually discussed by the corporate media, a dismissal strategy is available. The headlines would read: “Doubt in Legitimacy of 2004 Presidential Election Based on Attitude toward Bush Performance” or, for certain news organizations, “Complainers Doubt 2004 Outcome.” Those who think the country is headed in the right direction comprise 79% of those who are very confident in 2004 results. They comprise only 8% of the “not confident at all” group. Those who think the country is headed in the wrong direction represent 26% of the very confident responders and 47% of the not confident at all group.

Of course, President Carter’s popularity dropped below 30%, a majority of Americans were positive we were headed in the wrong direction. You will be very hard pressed to find one single voice rose to challenge Carter’s popular vote victory, even though his victory margin was narrow. The hypothesized right-wrong explanation of this exceptionally low level of confidence in the system is not a particularly good argument but it will not be needed.

There is a uniform failure to address the legitimacy of the 2004 election. It is not the fault of the public. From these results, it is easy to imagine a robust dialogue followed closely by an intense public debate on the real questions that lead those who do to doubt the legitimacy of the 2004 presidential election. With such a debate, the numbers “not at all confident” would rise even higher. What a shame it would be if the information managers win yet again.

*** # # # # ***

Copyright. Permission to reproduce in whole or part with attribution to the author, Michael Collins, a link to “Scoop,” and attribution of polling results to Zogby International.

Michael Collins is a writer who focuses on clean elections and voting rights. He is the publisher of the web site, www.ElectionFraudNews.com. His articles in “Scoop” Independent News can be found here.

[e-mail]

***APPENDIX***

The Zogby poll was conducted from August 11 through 15, 2006. 1018 adult voters were interviewed by phone. The sample of people interviewed reflects the demographic and regional diversity of the United States. Due to the size, it has a 3.1 % (+/-) margin of error. 95% of Zogby’s political polls have come within a 1% margin of accuracy in predicting election outcome. The survey was commissioned and sponsored by election rights and business law attorney Paul Lehto of Everett, Washington. This author, Michael Collins, was a contributing sponsor along with Democracy for New Hampshire.

ENDS

[Erika]

1. W's two terms will always be held suspect in history

as to if they were really legitimate. There's too much evidence pointing otherwise.

That will be a part of his legacy.

[autorank]

16. The Unbearable Legacy of Failure...

...for all of us, I'm afraid. :hi:

[Land Shark]

26. The documentation of shift: Public Not Using MSM to Evaluate elections

any more...

Among other things, the significance of this poll is that the American people are obtaining their political information and forming their political opinions in the face of widespread media censorship of all "stolen election" facts in favor of coverage of inspecific "fears" about future elections....

We must consider hardcore REpublicans to be "frozen" at "very confident" support levels for the legitimacy of Bush's election, therefore, vast majorities of Democrats and Independents have enough doubts to call themselves either "not confident at all" or only "somewhat confident."

[liberaldemocrat7]

27. .

[autorank]

34. Consiglieri, check this out from Joseph Cannon

http://www.electionfraud.news/ZogbyData/ZogbyIntl.08.16.2006.xls

[ooglymoogly]

66. link does not work

get server not found page

[ooglymoogly]

67. self delete... in wrong place

[autorank]

83. This does work...Lehto Cannonfire

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2006/08/democracy-denied-meet-new-boss.html

It does work!!!

[yurbud]

61. Wow--you just hit it on the head. Send this one to MSM news chiefs

it probably won't help, but if they want to do real news, it's something they can use to argue with their bosses.

[Land Shark]

81. will try, could use a publicity agent for this kinda stuff though...

[yurbud]

90. other way to get this noticed is if EVERYONE puts on their blogs and...

Add a tag like "Katie Couric" so when people go trolling for spokesmodel news gossip, they get this.

[kpete]

104. Autorank - You continue to amaze me

This is amazing info which should SCARE the shit out of the Bush Administration

There are alot of people on our side and your "courageous" work is a siren going off

I want EVERYONE to see and hear this - We are NOT alone -

[autorank]

109. Thank you SOOOO much....I get all my good info from the famous poster

kpete

stylish yet efficient
...a name you can rely on;)

[kpete]

115. That might be what I looked like before the 2000 election.....

because of

I look more like this now:

[autorank]

121. .

;)

[Raster]

84. dumbya's two terms are not only suspect, but EVERY piece of evidence

examined leads away from legitimacy. No matter how hard anyone digs NO ONE can come up with any shred of evidence validating bush*'s legal and lawful election. In fact the opposite is true. Every new lead or piece of evidence lends credence to the theory that two presidential elections were stolen.

[The Wizard]

86. So the queston is:

What is the legal remedy for removing a junta?

[Raster]

87. Our first line of recourse is through valid and lawful election. In many`

ways 2006 is the most important election in this nation's history. We MUST install a Democratic Congress with the power of (a) Subpoena and investigation; (b) Impeachment and conviction; and finally, (c) the power to enact laws to ensure that a similar cabal--no matter what the flavor--is not allowed to "game" the system ever again. And finally, we the citizens of the United States, have one final chance to prove to our brothers and sisters around the world that the United States of America still stands for and supports the rule of law. Most of the world still believes in us. It is the illegal and immoral bush* administration the world despises.

If the will of the people is not allowed to triumph because of electoral shenanigans, than it is time to take to the streets. Let the eruptions of democracy in Mexico serve as a guide. And let the founders of the country serve as our inspiration. This has gone on for far, far too long. The only people the bushco* junta is fooling seems to be Americans. The rest of the world has been shaking their heads in amazement that we have allowed this insanity to continue for as long as it has.

on edit: The rest of the world is waiting for us to stop the bush* descent into madness. If we don't take action, we might be faced with a world that will. In six years we have gone from the world's biggest benefactor into the worlds biggest terrorist.

[Land Shark]

105. Question: Who is organizing the "just in case" demonstrations NOW?

[Raster]

106. No one is. We are all waiting to see what happens in November.

[Land Shark]

113. Well let's not all dive across the election finish line too tired to move.

pots, pans, whatever, at the ready.

[kpete]

107. I have some pots and pans

and some sturdy chairs - just waiting for instructions...

[Helga Scow Stern]

2. Thanks again, gentlemen,

for another excellent reporting job on some long overdue news.

[autorank]

11. It's overdue but not overdone;)

The people barely have a chance to think about this issue and they're getting it right. They get no news from Corporate Media yet they know that the election had to stink; everything else does.

This shows it's not the fault of the people; they make the right call intuitively.

Thanks for the kind words.

[Wilms]

3. Brilliant Poll!

Hats off to you.

[autorank]

12. Thanks so much Wlms

...and hats off to the fellow who made it possible...

White House Toga Party

[kster]

19. Did someone say Toga party

I'm there!!

[StraightDope]

4. Recommended...

AMAZING!!! If the margin of victory for the Dems in November is wide enough, even Diebold won't keep these pigfuckers around much longer! If ~50% of the U.S. thinks that '04 was stolen, any attempt to do the same in '06 will be seen for what it is by at LEAST half of the country (not to mention the rest of the world). Good news for once!

[autorank]

18. Everybody has to vote!!! Masses at the polls, absentee, etc.

And ask questions, get answers. The vote is our right, not a privilege. We get to know how the process works regardless of "regulations" etc. I'd say the folks you say won't be around much longer better hope that there's no Swine Flu.

Thanks for the recommendation.

[Imagevision]

5. Will we ever know the true results from 04 election or will it be another

JFK story...

[autorank]

15. Yes, soon...n/t

[Imagevision]

71. Blackwell intentionally shorted machines in Black voting districts

there were video's of extremely long lines in mostly black districts contributed by a shortage of voting machines and photo's of extra voting machines left in storage warehouses -- people waiting 3-8 hours in line were kicked out because the lines were too long.

Truly pathetic when your government refuses to ensure a basic right as to the ability to vote for your choice, further more it appears the government was involved in controlling the outcome of the 2004 election.

[Ecumenist]

6. Amen, I say

I don't know ANYONE who believes the bush is the legitimate president... and this includes republicans in areas of northern California who are in areas that aren't particularly progressive, trust me. ALOT of these people are in Pombo's district!!!! With the very real possibility that this group of idiots are pushing another preemptive war against Iran, this needs to be openly discussed and addressed ASAP...

[autorank]

14. Those with ears should hear; those with eyes see...

Well, I know the area you're talking about and it's not Marin. If its wide spread there, then * is in extra serious trouble. These good people - Siskyou, Shasta, Modoc, Lassen Counties - think that there's nothing particularly odd about the Oregon-California border town "Weed, CA." If he's in trouble there, particularly Modoc County, it's time to get the United Van and move out the whole crew. Thank you for the ecumenical news;)

[Ecumenist]

42. "And let the church say...AMEN"

Auto, last year, I had occasion to spreak to a STAUNCH republican,(or had been a staunch republican), who lives in Tehama county. We're moving there, bought a 25 acre property in the country about 15 miles from Mendocino county border, which makes it alot easier to deal with , trust me. That's neither here nor there... The point is that she was SERIOUSLY questioning the honesty of * and his cabal. She is what many people would call a softening freeper who is a HARD CORE fundamentalist christian bornagain type. She and I spoke for about 5 hours and she really epressed ALOT of doubts about the REAL REASONS that we went to war and the suffering of the people of Iran, especially the children. She epressed that there were ALOT of people there who feel the same way and in fact, there is now RISING number of people who identify as progressive, albeit independents but progressive all the same.

[vanboggie]

7. So much for the "Fringe" theory

There is a majority of us :tinfoilhat: conspiracy theorists out there. :woohoo: This is grand news. This needs a super kick and you have my recommendation!


GREAT BIG :kick:

[autorank]

9. We are the new mainstream ;)

Just think about it...how high would the "very confident figure be if there had been any coverage, any at all, of the crappy election.

The wonderful American public is just out there ocnnecting the dots. They think, "Well everything else is lies, lies, lies...why should the election process be fair."

To think otherwise, they say, is "tortured logic."

Thanks!!!

[Red Right and BLUE]

37. Amen, nothing annoys me more than the 'fringe' argument

Someone here once posted that those of us who believe in the 'Diebold theories' or something to that effect need to be on medication.

"Funny," I thought. "I feel the same way about those who don't."

[nicknameless]

8. Great, Auto

K&R

[autorank]

13. Thanks so much Nick!!! n/t

[gumby]

10. Recommended.

This astonishing poll clearly illustrates the huge gap between 'the people' and the punditry.

David Broder can eat my grits. Phooey on 'em ALL!!!

[Swamp Rat]

17. k&r

[Land Shark]

20. Happy to join this particular party here with a K&R!

It's the companion piece to Zogby 92% support for the public's right to witness vote counting and obtain information about vote counting. (same poll)

[autorank]

30. The American people are much brighter than even Zogby knows

He's always running these polls to make the public look silly. Nice way to treat your cuswtomers;)

Well, 92% are smart enough to know the most fundamental right in any democracy, the right of citizens to evaluate the honesty of the election process.

That's pretty damn good, in my book.

Where's Bleever, we can have our duel:evilgrin:

[NVMojo]

21. Thanks, Paul Lehto! You rule! And so does Autorank!

So does America wake up now???

[Land Shark]

24. The poll seems to suggest the slumbering has stopped...

And this question was the primary focus of Michael Collins/Autorank, so kudos to him.

But, I mean, you can't expect hardcore republicans to answer anything other than "very confident" of Bush victory so what do you expect?? This means that a doubt or doubts on the election are extremely widespread.

While many wish to make fun of Americans' stupidity regarding politics, the poll also says that fully 92% of americans are NOT stupid enough to let vote count witnessing and informational rights out of their possession. But that doesn't mean Diebold, Sequoia, ES&S, Hart Intercivic and Triad won't try to steal these rights from the public anyway.

[emlev]

22. I'd sure like to hear responses to the unasked 3rd question:

How did those doubts arise?

Thanks for yet another great piece!

[autorank]

31. Adrian, I mean Emily

Oops, Adrian is Emily's name from our Advanced Dungeons and Dragons group...sorry;)

They just look at the whole operation, generalize and make the correct judgement, we have no confidence in anything they do!

You're right, it would be nice to know the motivations of those in both doubt categories.

I speculate (above):

"How the doubts arose will require more research. The response to other Zogby Poll questions in the same survey provides a major hint. 60% of American voters believe that tampering with only one machine can alter the outcome of an entire election. Nearly 80% oppose the use of secret, vendor-only computer code to run voting machines. Plus an amazing 92% of respondents said that they want the right to watch votes being counted and the right to make inquires of election officials regarding vote counting. They want that right because it belongs to them but also, I argue, because they doubt the process and the checks and balances. These doubts about the election occur at the same time there is doubt about the outcome and interact to reinforce each other.

Grave doubts exist about the 2004 presidential election in Ohio and elsewhere. Questions are asked primarily by mathematicians who cannot tolerate a seeming suspension of the lawsof mathematics for one day only, November 2, 2004, voting rights activists who witnessed voter suppression and election irregularities at an extraordinary rate, and ordinary citizens whose civic concern was awakened by the 2000 Supreme Court selection and the 2004 election that defied all logic.

Despite the productivity of election fraud researchers and voting rights advocates, very little attention has been given to questions of election fraud by the corporate media. The significant vote of no confidence expressed by a representative sample of 1018 likely voters was driven by several factors: from information gained through channels other than corporate media or due to a general distrust of the president based on his behavior and actions or a combination of these and other factors."

[EFerrari]

23. Kick it, rec it and send it everywhere!

lol

:kick:

[LunaC]

25. 52% “doubt” the legitimacy of the election

That's an important shift. If the GOP tries to pull their usual tricks for the Mid-terms, they're not going to get away with it without an uproar...or so I hope!

[EFerrari]

29. They are pulling the usual. Today there was a story in LBN

about them trotting out the fictitious "values voters".

You know what that means.

[autorank]

32. "Values voters" were phantoms;)

Just like the voters in Georgia in 2002 and Ohio's special election (Hackett vs. Schmidt), the special measures election in Ohio, and all those close ones we ALWAYS lose...

[EFerrari]

33. Exactly. The "humidity" vote.

:kick:

[autorank]

35. Did you say "humidity" - Hackettt gets screwed - I can't resist;)

The Veteran Of Fallujah Defeated By OH's Humidity
Tuesday, 23 August 2005, 10:54 pm
Opinion: autorank

DÉJÀ VU ALL OVER AGAIN?
DEMOCRAT HACKETT LOSES A SQUEAKER IN
OHIO’S 2nd CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:
THE NEW VOTING RIGHTS STRUGGLE 2004-2005

by Michael Collins (aka autorank)
DemocraticUnderground.Com
2004 Elections Results and Discussion Forum


Hackett greets fellow vet former Sen. Max Cleland, D, GA.
Cleland was injured in Viet Nam. Cleland lost a questionable
Senate election in Georgia in 2002.

The humidity crisis.

Then it happened: the “humidity” crisis. For pure drama, it could not have occurred at a more dramatic point in the vote tabulation. Of Clermont County’s 191 precincts, 100 had been counted. Then the Board of Elections announced that excessive humidity had caused ballots to swell, making them difficult to count. As a result, there would be a delay in the count. At this point, the election was dead even statistically, at 50% for each candidate. The 91 precincts in Clermont represented about 12% of the remaining vote. When the crisis was resolved, the 50-50% tie changed into a 52% to 48% victory for Schmidt.


Schmidt celebrates her victory election night.

In the period between the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the 2000 Presidential election, this series of events would have attracted little attention. The “spoilage” issue was there every four years, but the problem was largely ignored. But starting with 2000 and continuing through the 2004 election, it became obvious that black Americans were no longer alone in losing their right to vote and have it counted. What better place to demonstrate this than Clermont County and the Ohio 2nd Congressional District, with its negligible black population in the both populous and rural regions.

Unanswered questions about the humidity crisis.

While the humidity crisis delayed vote counting at a key time, local media barely covered the event. Board of Election officials stated that ballots had acquired sufficient humidity in 91 out of 191 precincts to require a delay in the vote count. They pointed out that their optical scan tabulator was slowed by the humidity of the ballots. Few details were offered on that process. The Cincinnati Post and all the major television outlets, save one, the Enquirer, were silent on the issue. Ironically, the only coverage of the humidity issue on besides the Enquirer and a local television station was in National Review Online, the traditional conservative magazine’s online service which mentioned the humidity.

The NBC affiliate, Channel 5, said, “The drama of a close race lasted late into the night. Schmidt led by less than one percent with 88 % of the precincts in. But she must have felt secure in knowing that the only uncounted precincts were in Clermont County, her home.” (Updated 1:13 pm EDT, August 3, 2005). We hear about “the drama of a close race” lasting into the night, but nothing about what caused the drama. The cause was the ballots taking on humidity. MSNBC, fed by the Cincinnati affiliate, treated the climax of the race like a sporting event: “With the home-field advantage, Schmidt dominated 58 % to 42 % in Clermont (16,162 votes to 11,689) and Warren counties (7,556 votes to 5,420).” There was mention of the sudden stoppage of vote tabulation when the race was at 50-50% at 10:40 pm.

Only Howard Wilkinson of the Enquirer implied questions. He began his August 2, 2005, analysis by saying, “The apparent win by Republican Jean Schmidt in Tuesday’s 2nd Congressional District election was in no way shocking, but the fact that Democrat Paul Hackett made it a very close election is nothing short of astounding.” Given the announcement of the final count by the time this was written, the use of “apparent win” might lead some to think Mr. Wilkinson has paid attention to the history of the 2004 Presidential election in Southwestern Ohio.

Wilkinson followed up on August 4, 2005, with an article headlined “ Clermont: Humid heat hurt count, not plotting.” He opened with, “Humidity held an edge over conspiracy in explaining a glitch in counting Tuesday night’s 2nd Congressional District returns in Clermont County.” He reported questions that had been raised on political blogs. He also spoke to Clermont Board of Elections official and Democrat Kathy Jones, who said that the humidity “simply slowed the process of running the ballots through the readers.” Senior Ohio Democratic official Michael Culp was quoted as saying, “It was apparently just a matter of paper ballots getting damp in the humidity.” The door was left slightly ajar when he reminded readers that Schmidt’s primary victory in Clermont County of 705 votes had multiplied overnight by 380% to a “corrected” 2,667 vote Clermont margin.

The Board of Elections explained the problem to the Associated Press on election night: “Tim Rudd says the ballots pick up moisture when it gets hot, making it tougher for the optical scan machines to sort and count.”

Questions not asked about the vote count stoppage.

The sudden stoppage of vote tabulation in Clermont was reminiscent of nearby Warren County’s Board of Elections citizen-media lockout during vote counting in 2004, which county officials claimed to be the result of a Homeland Security alert. There was no alert.

Was humidity the reason the optical scanning machine count stopped in Clermont, or was there some “intelligent design?” Humidity can impact the ability of optical scan counting machines to process paper ballots. It is not frequently reported and there are clear instructions providing easy remedies (e.g. air condition polling and tabulation facilities). The state of Louisiana made its 2003 RFP for voting machines contingent on tolerating a 98% humidity rate, for example. Air conditioning is reported to be widely available in Clermont County, as are dehumidifiers.

Why were 91 precincts impacted while 100 others were not in the same County?

Information about the locations of the humidity-impacted districts is unavailable. Was each of the 91 precincts without air conditioning? That would be a 48% rate of precincts exposed to conditions that the Board had to know could create problems. For them to announce problems with ballots due to humidity after the fact is remarkable. Certainly, they knew that humidity could be an issue. Just days before the special election there were extensive reports of a serious heat and humidity wave in the Cincinnati area. The regions largest newspaper, The Cincinnati Enquirer had been talking about the heat and humidity days before the election. Surely humidity on Election Day should have been taken into account.

Was there a one-to-one match between precincts with “humidified” ballots and precincts without air conditioning?

If so, why were nearly half of the precincts exposed to humidification? And if this is not so, if some of the 91 precincts with ballot problems due to humidity had air conditioning and some did not, how does the Board explain humidity problems in precincts with air conditioning?

Was Clermont the only part of the 2nd District that was affected by humidity that day and if so, why?

Clermont used optical scan paper ballots. Five other counties used punch card paper ballots, which have a similar or greater vulnerability to expansion or distortion due to humidity. There were no reports of problems in those five counties related to humidity. What is the critical variable that makes Clermont ballots vulnerable to distortion due to excessive moisture? Were precincts all air conditioned in the five counties that used punch card paper ballots? Was there something like an intense thermal inversion going on above the 91 precincts in Clermont County?

Why did the Board of Elections allow precincts to operate that lacked sufficient air conditioning to prevent humidity?

These questions need to be answered given the prior questions raised and documented about Clermont. The Board of Elections operates all year round. There is sufficient time to study manuals, attend vendor-sponsored retreats, and talk to nearby officials. Nearly half of the Clermont precincts had humidified ballots. A failure rate of nearly 50% is totally unacceptable performance for an election and offers the most unflattering commentary on those who are supposed to run it efficiently.

Precincts with the most votes favored Schmidt at nearly 100%, with Hackett winning in only those with less than 200 votes counted.

A review of precinct level results by TruthIsAll on DemocraticUnderground reveals this interesting trend. This data is preliminary and more detail needs to be obtained from the Clermont Board of Elections. However, the trend observed for Clermont makes little sense on the face of it.

Hackett won 38 of 191 Clermont precincts with fewer than 187 votes, but lost ALL of the largest 54 precincts (those with more than 187 votes each). This is reflected in the following graph produced by DemocraticUnderground poster TruthIsAll on of the first election fraud analysts to notice anomalies in Clermont County.


Graph: Hackett won 38 of 191 Clermont precincts but lost ALL of the 54 largest
(TruthIsAll)

The following percentages help elaborate the graph above.

Hackett’s percentage by precinct group size:

46.9% in precincts under 100 votes
43.5% in precincts of 100-200 votes
39.6% in precincts of 200-300 votes
34.6% in precincts of 300 + votes

These results raise interesting questions. Why does Hackett do much better in the smaller precincts? Are they more rural than the larger precincts? If so, does this not present a counterintuitive pattern, with the Democrat taking some of the conservative, less populated areas and the Republican winning all of the precincts in the most populated areas?

A question can be raised about the difference between turnout (the votes cast) and the actual size of the precinct, which may or may not be a reflection of votes cast.

The following graph, also produced by TruthIsAll, answers the question. As he said while commenting on this data on 8/5/05: “The regression line has zero slope. Voters turned out at a fairly constant rate across precincts. So turnout wasn't a factor in explaining why the Schmidt vote percentage increased as precinct size increased.”


(TruthIsAll)

Graph: No Correlation between Precinct Registration and Voter Turnout


Voter turnout in the larger precincts

[EFerrari]

39. Swill. They try to feed us SWILL.

"For them to announce problems with ballots due to humidity after the fact is remarkable."

We cannot continue to accept these gobsmacking results.

My choice would be to mount Operation OhioRescue. I don't even care about the whole election. I just want Ohio to be able to VOTE.

And, New Mexico, Pennsyvania, Florida, and Colorado -- while we're at it!

ARGH!

[autorank]

45. There was actually someone here defending the "humidity" excuse

What a joke. It only effected the last batch of ballots to be counted. Now what are the odds of
that happening, the last 90 plus precincts to be counted are the only ballots to be effected by humidity. Must have been one of those 'dark clouds' that follows unlucky people around.

:shrug:

[nicknameless]

49. An overlooked little factoid is that air conditioning DEHUMIDIFIES the air

Since they were in an air conditioned building, the humidity should have lessened over time, not increased.
If humidity was going to be a problem, it would have occurred early on in the counting -- not at the end.

(Sorry to keep jumping in on your conversation)

[EFerrari]

50. There you go introducing common sense into the story.

:mad:

[nicknameless]

51. Thinking is an act of "terrorism" according to this regime.

:eyes:


I was um, *intrigued* by your signature and had to go look up the story.
God, that woman is going to be missed! :(

[nicknameless]

40. Among other "glitches" in that election ...

I was listening to Randi Rhodes that day. She had Hackett on and was really urging Ohio Dems to get out the vote.

But then a caller from Ohio informed her that her show had been knocked off the air.
It was blamed on a transmitter problem ... except she later found out that only her show had been affected.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=1657

COMMENT #20
... urbanmee-maw said on 8/4/2005 @ 5:04 pm PT...

I volunteered a bit for Hackett in Cincinnati (I was an outside agitator from the west side of Cincinnati) and I told a couple of fellow workers about my concern that there could be vote fraud. Another interesting thing happened here that night. WCKY (1530) runs Randi Rhodes on a tape delay from 6-10pm. She had Hackett on her show from 7-8pm and devoted the whole hour to urging people to vote. I had to find out about that the day after the election, because when I tuned Randi in at 7:00 on election night it was dead air. Dead air for 30-40 minutes. The Program Director for 1530 supposedly said a transmitter caught on fire. I suspect dirty tricks abounded on many levels that night.

:grr:

[EFerrari]

43. I didn't know this. Gee, what a surprise.

:mad:

[nicknameless]

46. Hey, it was just a little glitch.

It's just so mysterious that these so-called "glitches" never seem to negatively affect rethug candidates.

:grr:

[autorank]

44. That sounds about right...they can't stand the truth.

Oh, and btw, did you hear the "winner" of that contest, now in Congress, was caught plagerizing a speech from a fellow Republican. What a crew.

[nicknameless]

48. Yes, I read that.

Poor Ohio. I hope they can dump her soon.

[nicknameless]

41. Self deleted (dupe)

[autorank]

95. .

(change #1 – replace 1st URL and text below with the following--

(Existing test - no change)

“This is a remarkable result. Nearly two years into the second term of his presidency, less than half of those polled think that the 2004 election victory was “fair and square.” 20% say they are “somewhat” confident, which is hardly an endorsement of legitimacy. Webster’s defines “somewhat” as follows: “…in some degree or measure: SLIGHTLY.“ This does not exactly qualify as an endorsement of a critical democratic process. The 32% who are “not at all confident” represent a huge portion of the population believing that Bush failed to win without cheating. Combining “not at all confident” with “somewhat” “slightly”, according to Webster’s, produces a category of 52% who “doubt” the legitimacy of the election. Altogether, these results are a clear vote of no confidence.”

(Note: CHANGE this URL and the text form what’s there now to what’s below. Everything before and after that URL & text below stays the same. It’s the 1st graph and the text below "Confident or Doubts" Everything until change #2 is fine)

-----------------


Combining “not confident at all” and “somewhat” (“in some degree measure: SLIGHTLY”) produces
a category of “Doubts.” This gives a clear picture on legitimacy versus illegitimacy issue..

---------------------

(Change #2 - 2 URL’s added along with existing text)

(Existing text:)

“The “in betweens” show less difference than the “very confident” and the “not confident at all” responders among the various subgroups polled.”’

(Note: Change: After the above text, just swap out what’s below for what’s in the post right now. There should be two sentences and there may be links. Everything BETWEEN the above text AND The importance of this survey GOES and is replaced by the text/html below.

-----------------------

Where they live: confidence by location



Those with “doubts are more likely to live in a large city. But nearly half in rural areas show “doubts.”



--------------------------
(Note: The change ends when you see the text:)

The Importance of the Survey

[rumpel]

aha!

can we put this on a big billboard?

perferably in view from a very famous house?

Thanks again guys. ;)

[rumpel]

28. aha!

can we put this on a big billboard?

perferably in view from a very famous house?

Thanks again guys. ;)

[FogerRox]

36. Billboards, hmmmm, KNR

[Red Right and BLUE]

38. BIG K&R

[Vidar]

47. K&R.

[katinmn]

52. K&R!

[texpatriot2004]

53. I have zero confidence that * won fair and square...no way! nm

[Thoreau-Ly]

93. Like a Splinter in Your Mind's Eye

Driving you mad.

The truth is blinding too many people.

In the summer of 2003, Representative Peter King (R., N.Y.) was interviewed by Alexandra Pelosi at a barbecue on the White House lawn for her HBO documentary Diary of a Political Tourist. "It's already over. The election's over. We won," King exulted more than a year before the election. When asked by Pelosi—the daughter of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi—how he knew that Bush would win, he answered, "It's all over but the counting. And we'll take care of the counting."

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0507/S00353.htm

Shortly after the presidential vote in November 2000, two law clerks at the United States Supreme Court were joking about the photo finish in Florida. Wouldn’t it be funny, one mused, if the matter landed before them? And how, if it did, the Court would split five to four, as it so often did in big cases, with the conservative majority installing George W. Bush in the White House? The two just laughed. It all seemed too preposterous.

http://www.makethemaccountable.com/articles/The_Path_To_Florida.htm

[autorank]

114. Wonderful quotations.

This are must perfect...the second one, I'd not heard before. Imagine that, they have a sense of irony and the absurd, essential for survival inthe corridors of power.

:hi:

[Thoreau-Ly]

116. Precisely, By the Way.

Tragic what happened to the Supreme Court that day. Lost an unrecoverable amount of credibility. They can't teach the decision in law school, for crying out loud.

The article does make for good reading, somewhat sadly.

[mod mom]

54. Numbers sound low to me, but excellent effort.

Is this the insomniacs post or what? Get some sleep people! (it works wonders for your mood)

Maybe it's where I live-voters who witnessed first hand the theft of the '04 election, but where I was perceived as a kook shortly after the '04, the folks I run into have come around.

Thanks for your excellent work Landshark and Auto! (Did you see my post that the Fadiman showing (near the campus of OSU) was sold out last night? Our numbers are growing everyday!

[mom cat]

55. Great poll. Most people are NOT "real confident" that Bush really won

"fair and square". That says it all!
:dem::toast::bounce::bounce::headbang::smoke::smoke::yourock::smoke::smoke::headbang::bounce::bounce::toast::kick:

[The Wizard]

88. Bush never did anything by the rules his entire life

A family history of breaking or skirting the law is hereditary. Cheating is in the DNA. Can you say Romanov?

[Me.]

56. So, Whatcha Think?

With so much scrutiny, is there a chance they won't be able to steal '06?

*shadow government*

[rrasile]

57. Why Vote

Tony Snow and the Republicans would say that this is old news and that Democrats are cry babys. The real fact is that the Bush elections will be historic because every voter knows that things happened and that everyone was effected and cheated.
Voting machines will be looked at more carefully as well as voter fraud. In Ohio we don't think anything was funny about it. We had it all and all we received from the major networks was the cry baby shit. We had a township's fire levy pass that had more votes then voters. The fire chief could have taken the vote as counted but he showed more class then the board of elections when he refused. We had a local Post Master call a board of elections about postage due on absentee ballots and no one reacted. Very small things but brother it did piss some people off and someone will be taking the blame.

[Land Shark]

58. Question: since when is "defending democracy" being a "cry baby"?

The winners certainly can't defend the integrity of democracy, they won't question their own good fortune or certainly can't be RELIED UPON to do so. Only the losers can challenge to vindicate the integrity of democracy, and if the losers are shamed or intimidated via "sore loser" or "cry baby" attacks into not making the claims that would vindicate the integrity of democracy, then quite literally democracy is left DEFENSELESS.

Paul Lehto

[mod mom]

59. Because we are kick these bastard's sorry asses off the map! The repuke

base is demoralized and splintered. In my state of Ohio there is double digit leads-how will they steal that?

I'm an election reform activist who is aware of what went on and we have been urging to VOTE and VOTE on traceable paper: absentee. I am going to the BOE to vote and taking a photo of my vote. Never give in to thugs.

[aquart]

65. You seem lost.

Why would the opinion of thieving, greedy, treasonous Republicans matter to us?

[yurbud]

60. Do you have a bigger version of that RESPONSIBILITY motivational poster?

I want to post that to my blog--with appropriate credit and links.

[EFerrari]

62. Kick

[Imagevision]

63. Perhaps if Dems win elections we can finally know extent of * corruption

[BeFree]

64. I am confident

Confident that the election of GeeDumbYa was not an election that was fair and square.

Keep spreading the news!

PS.... only 47 recs? C'mon people!

[ooglymoogly]

68. thank our lucky stars there are a few who have

risen above the "quell domage" yawn delusion that things will work themselves out and stood up to the msm that has become the tool of corruption that has brought about the decline of this once great nation...so thank you for this sparkle of sunlight...k&n

[Peace Patriot]

69. I'm reminded of the Feb. '03 poll: 56% of Americans opposed to the Iraq

war. Way back then. This was before the invasion, and after Colin Powell's BS at the UN about WMDs (so they'd heard those BS arguments; however, that they were 100% BS was not yet known). Also, about half of that 56% opposed the war outright. The other half would only agree if it was a UN peacekeeping mission (i.e., international consensus that action was required). In other words, they didn't trust Bush. Way back then. That was a remarkable percentage opposed to the war, given the 24/7 propaganda spewing from not just Faux News, but all the channels, and not just TV, the goddamned NYT shilling for Bush's war on page one, day after day.

56%, in a presidential election, is a landslide.

I've argued all along that the American people are a lot better informed, and much more progressive, than anyone gives them credit for. That 56% poll got me real interested. What's going on here? A big majority against the war, before it even starts, yet we have war anyway. I also noticed another stat: 63% of Americans opposed to torture "under any circumstances" (May '04). Under any circumstances! 63%! That stat brought tears to my eyes. Wow, I thought, my fellow Americans are not buying this crap from Bush. They're sticking to their sense of ethics and justice and lawfulness, despite 24/7 propaganda. And they're going to rise up and throw these criminals out of office. I was watching a lot of polls. Major disagreement between people and government on EVERY major policy, foreign and domestic.*

Well, after the 2004 election, I finally figured it out. If you're going to shove an unjust war down peoples' throats, in a democracy, you have to rig the elections.

They weren't rigged back in 1968. That's why LBJ had to step down. Very unpopular war, Vietnam. People turned against it, once they saw what it was (given the more honest news coverage of that era). LBJ could not run for a 2nd term.**

IF our democracy was in working order, the same thing should have happened 2004. A president in disgrace due to lies and deceit about unjust war. And, with Bush/Cheney, you didn't even have the War on Poverty, the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act as mitigating factors (as LBJ did). These guys are unmitigated bastards. No redeeming features.

Some things were not yet known in 2004: pervasive domestic spying, bold, blatant "in your face" lawbreaking, torture memo writer Alberto Gonzales as AG, the Downing Street Memo. But plenty was known: widespread torture, no WMDs in Iraq, growing chaos in Iraq, billions of dollars missing in Iraq, lies and deceit, treason (outing a CIA agent to cover up war lies), deficit out of control, multiple tax cuts for the rich. (I mean, even if you consider a lot of Americans to be uninformed sheep or stupid, callous couch potatoes, you'd think they would vote in their own interest. A $10 trillion deficit and tax cuts for the rich is not in their interest, and is a brutal assault upon them.***)

First thing that happens, the antiwar candidate (Dean) is knocked out of the race. So, the people are left with two choices: the guy who started the unjust war, and a guy who voted for it. But that doesn't stop the tremendous grass roots movement that arose to oust the Bush Cartel. The Greens, the independents, the Naderites, the new voters, voted for Kerry in overwhelming numbers, and, along with the Democratic rank and file, got out and worked hard--and very successfully--to elect him. (60/40 blowout success for the Democrats in new voter registration in 2004!). Change was in the air. You could smell it. Word on the street: "This is the most important election in our history." People were dragging all their non-voting co-workers and family members to the polls. It was the greatest expression of democracy I had ever seen in the U.S., bar none.

I had two hints of what was going to happen, but they were not enough to get me to think that Bush could survive this American uprising: 1) In spring 2004, our CA Sec of State, Kevin Shelley, sued Diebold for their lies about the security of their machines, decertified their worst machines (the touchscreens), and provided Californians with a paper ballot option at the polls. But I did not realize how widespread these electronic voting machines had become, nor how riggable they are, nor how and why this had happened; 2) my mate (my weather vane) said to me, in spring 2004, that Bush and Cheney were too arrogant, like they have it all sewed up--it had him spooked. (The Abu Ghraib torture photos had just come out.)

Nevertheless, I was floored by the 2004 election theft. I felt really bad for about 30 minutes, then I started putting it all together (then I found DU and TIA).

If you're going to shove an unjust war down peoples' throats, in a democracy, you HAVE TO rig the elections. So, how did they do it?--was my question, not whether or not they did. It was obvious to me that they did, and that these Diebold machines (that Kevin Shelley was so wary of) were the key. (And is it any wonder they subsequently "swiftboated" Shelley out of office, on entirely bogus corruption charges. He was a major threat to their rotten e-voting scheme--as well to its future uses--and was rallying secy's of state around the country to challenge this technology. I've subsequently learned that one of the items in his lawsuit was a demand that they disclose their source code.)

Some people blame the corporate news monopolies. And they are, indeed, very much to blame--but their crime is somewhat different than many leftists believe. They never did convince anybody of anything. Their propaganda FAILED. 56% of the people could see through it, way back in Feb. '03 (--an amazing feat of the American people). Their crime is to act as the prop--one of the pillars--holding up an illegitimate regime. The one thing they have been able to convince people of is that, somehow, some way, OTHER Americans have gone nuts and support George Bush, and that WE, the progressive majority are in the minority (or that we are, in any case, powerless against the rightwing machine). They act as the force of demoralization and disempowerment of the majority. (And if anyone does not believe that this is a corporate media conspiracy to prop up the Bush Junta--a concerted effort of the 5 billionaires who control all "news" in this country--they have only to visit www.TruthIsAll.net, and consider their doctoring of their own exit polls, on election eve, to force them to fit the results of Diebold/ES&S's "trade secret," proprietary vote counting software.)

So, what are we to make of this new Zogby poll, that more than half of those polled have no confidence, or little confidence, in the 2004 election? How you vote is different from what you think of an election. You may vote for A, but figure that B won, as to numbers of votes--aside from sleazy campaign tactics, corporate funding, or whatever--not enough people saw through it, and, in that case, you may blame the "sheeple" factor, but you can't argue with the vote. But concluding that the election was literally stolen is another matter entirely, except for this: motivation to steal the election. Public office = power. Everybody knows this. That is a reason to steal elections. That is WHY elections are supposed to be TRANSPARENT. The age-old reason. However, add to this that candidate B is an incumbent who has committed grave crimes, and NEEDS to remain in office to continue committing crimes and to prevent investigation, and you have reason for MORE suspicious than you would normally have, of the election result. I think this is probably what many in this Zogby poll believe: the Bush Junta's motives to steal the election were overwhelming. (They also have 2000 as a precedent.) WOULD these people steal an election if they could? OF COURSE they would!

The other issue is HOW, and this is where many Americans are deficient in information (due to the fact that the takeover of our election system with "trade secret," proprietary vote counting software, owned and controlled by Bushite corporations, during the 2002-2004 period, is THE black-holed news story of all black-holed news stories). I would guess that about half of those who distrust the 2004 election know how it was stolen. And some of those are confused about the Ohio vote suppression. And so am I, for that matter. At times, I'm fairly convinced that Ohio happened BECAUSE of Bushite control of vote totals in other states. They confidently suppressed votes, in plain view, in a blatantly illegal fashion, because the OTHER vote stealing they did, around the country, gave them immunity against loss of the election and, thus, against any legal consequences as to the Voting Rights Act. In other words, they gleefully stomped all over black and other poor voters GRATUITOUSLY. But there is also a good argument that they may have had limits on how much e-vote stealing they could do, in other places, without raising too many eyebrows, that the malicious code didn't work well enough to handle the Kerry landslide, and couldn't be easily changed on election day, and that it all really did "come down to Ohio," where multiple vote stealing tactics had to be used.

Also, the vote suppression is, in many ways, far more disturbing than the e-voting scam. Corrupt White House, corrupt Congress, corrupt state/county elections officials, and a completely corrupted vote counting process. Okay. We can see how these things happened, and these things can be fixed. But what of the hearts and souls of ordinary Americans--the people on the boards of elections, the office workers, the Republican election workers--who wink at suspicious vote totals, egregiously non-transparent vote counting, bullying and threatening of the poor, unfairly challenging them at the polls, throwing their "provisional" ballots out? What of lower tier election officials in Diebolded counties, with highly corrupt higher officials, saying nothing? And, finally, what of the Democratic Party upper leadership, who dismissed all this--along with Bushite corporate control of the e-voting systems--and forbade any talk of election fraud?

How Diebold/ES&S--and thus the Bush Junta--gained control over election results is easier to understand than how ordinary Americans (Republican or not), and Democratic leaders, tolerated this egregiously undemocratic process (e-voting) and massive illegal, unethical, un-american conduct (vote suppression). It is dismaying, to the say the least. A moral breakdown. A loss of the fundamentals of democracy, in some peoples' hearts. I am not at all concerned about the American majority. There is overwhelming evidence that it remains progressive, in the teeth of relentless propaganda. The rightwing is a minority--always has been, always will be. (It has merely been given a Big Trumpet by the war profiteering corporate news monopolies, way out of proportion to its numbers.) But I AM concerned about the loss of belief in democracy among election officials (or is it just corruption, in their case?), among ordinary Republican election workers and activists, and among the top Democratic leadership. How can any of them have tolerated these blatant Bushite assaults on our election system?

On the positive side, I think that WHERE the 2004 was stolen was mostly in Republican areas. They stole the votes of Republicans who voted for Kerry. (I have good reason to believe this was true in California, and I know Cliff Arnebeck suspects it in Ohio--and I extrapolate for there. Where would it be easiest to steal Kerry votes? Among Republican defectors from Bush, in areas where unethical, un-american Bushite officials preside! I also have some anecdotal evidence to this point--Republican defection from Bush--in 2004, in San Diego.)

Think about that 80% of Republicans who are "confident" that Bush won. That leaves 20% who have doubts. 20% of Republicans! (--including 5% who have no confidence in it at all). Could that also be the Republican votes for Kerry that were stolen? It reminds me of the 56% opposed to the Iraq war. That figure HAS to include some Republicans, who, way back in Feb. '03, had lost confidence in Bush. (My little San Diego anecdote also confirms this--a group of retired lawyers, doctors, military and foreign service who thought Bush was "nuts" to invade Iraq.) If 20% of Republican voters defected from Bush in 2004, they of course would have some doubts that Bush won. They might not have the low opinion that we do of Bushite ethics--and thus have not been inspired to look into the matter (and haven't "done the math")--but common sense tells them that if they and some of their friends had lost confidence in Bush, and voted for Kerry, they were not alone--ergo, with all the Democrats enthused about ousting Bush, how could Bush have won? (--and if their thinking goes any further, into the facts about our fraudulent election SYSTEM, their doubts would be further aroused). 20% is a lot of Republicans to have doubts about Bush winning.

A poll on peoples information level about the election system, and about the facts of the 2004 election, and where they got their information, would be interesting. But I think we can pretty much guess how it would come out, as to level of information. Those who have no confidence that Bush won, or have doubts, have the most information (the majority, slightly over 50%). And the remainder are either uninformed, uninvolved citizens (probably about 35%), or don't care (corrupt, fascist, would just as soon see Democrats rounded up and silenced--about 15%). The most fascinating question would be where the informed people got their information. Because this is key to the future of our country. What kind of informal, community, "word of mouth" networks are being created by ordinary people, to get around the disinformation of the government and the corporate news monopolies? And how much has the internet and email lists helped? (--I would think they have helped a lot.) The early American revolutionaries had Tom Paine's "committees of correspondence." Is the internet our modern version? And what else is going on--meetings, books, articles, conversations over the back fence. (I had one of the latter--a surprising "back fence" conversation--that put me onto the voter revolt via Absentee Ballot voting, the means by which ordinary people are trying to get around the electronic voting machines. They don't know the perils of AB voting. They DO know something about the perils of e-voting. They want a PAPER BALLOT, HAND-COUNTED. And I got to thinking: what if we ALL just voted by Absentee Ballot? It wouldn't necessarily insure accurate vote counts, but it WOULD cause all hell to break loose in the election theft industry! What would they do, if nobody would vote on their diabolical machines? Ha!)

Well, enough of my jabber. Autorank, many blessings upon you for your awesome work on this matter!

-----------------

*(These stats people keep citing about 50% believing Saddam had WMDs and/or had something to do with 9/11 are quite interesting in this respect. EVEN WITH this disinformation rattling around in their heads, nearly 60% of Americans opposed the war then, and even more opposite it now. Upshot: They didn't/don't agree with Bush's INTERPRETATION on these non-facts, nor with his ACTIONS regarding them. Saddam was NOT a sufficient threat to warrant a war against Iraq. I think it shows fine discrimination by the American people, and a lot of effort to "read between the lines.")

**The fascists learned a couple of lessons there. Hide the body bags, for one. No pictures. "Embed" reporters, so they'll get fragged if they report the truth. Don't do a Draft (a Draft works for a just war--many people even volunteer--but not for an unjust one). Go with the professional military (and of course these days, mercenaries). Since the military is trained to obey orders, work 'em to death with multiple tours of duty. Etc.)

***(However, I don't hold this view of most Americans. My average American is a brown-skinned woman with 2 low-paying jobs, supporting 3 kids and a caring for her aging mother, and angling to get into a training program, or to get her community college AA. Neither sheep, nor couch potato. I think there are a lot more of her than there are idiots or freepers, and she knows well enough how the Bush Junta harms her. Despite her busy and responsible life, she reads between the lines when the "news" comes on.)

-----------------------------

Bust the Machines--Vote by Absentee Ballot this November!

If the 60% to 70% of Americans who despise the Bush Junta vote by Absentee Ballot, the reign of these election theft machines will be OVER!

[dave420]

70. This won't change a thing.

Just watch. Most people just don't give a shit about democracy. This will change nothing.

[Land Shark]

72. Dave420, how do you think we got to the point of numbers like this??

It's because of people that weren't anywhere near as pessimistic as you are, os there's been steady progress in spreading the word and changing America's opinions.

Now, if we have a democracy, things will change. If we don't have a democracy, this in and of itself is not likely to change things but it's still a necessary first step. The process of writing the correct version of history has commenced in full force and I hope you won't be dissuading the "troops" from working further on it!

Give me a half million dollar advertising budget and I'll prove you completely wrong Dave420. Any takers out there? : )

[dave420]

82. I'm not convinced!

Someone saying "I'm not confident" and that same person effecting change are two different things. How much energy does it take to participate in a poll, compared to actually doing something about it? That's where the problem lies. Also, a poll of just over 1,000 people in a country of nearly 300,000,000 means verrrry little indeed.

I've yet to see this progress you speak of. I would have thought after the shit-storm that was the 2000 election, it would be curtains for Bush in '04, yet nothing changed. He didn't even win the popular vote in '00, so just the slightest change would mean he'd lose power in '04. The muppet is still in power, and the people are still bitterly divided by some ridiculous notion of party affiliation, thanks mainly to the media, and the rather pathetic two-party system in place in the US. Clearly no tangible progress has been made.

I'm hardly being pessimistic - we've all seen this bullshit since '00, and it is still happening. People seem far too comfortable sitting in their easy chairs watching TV than actually pushing for the self-proclaimed last bastion of democracy to actually become a functioning democracy, or even something that vaguely resembles it. The fact you need at least a million bucks to run for any sort of public position with any clout shows that the idea of democracy died a long, long time ago, and no-one gives a flying fuck. Even the democrats are guilty of this.

The media in the US has turned itself into one massive opinion piece, with both the left and the right using it to twist and distort people's views of the policies, candidates and general players in the political scene. It happens here every day - someone will post something tugging at the heart-strings to push their point across, just as it happens on the free republic site. Democracies are run on FACTS, not opinions. The people need to know as much as possible about the issues at hand, otherwise their vote is as useful in running the country as a hotdog is useful for going to the moon. Sponsorship is the main culprit there. Profit does not come from rocking the boat, and when massive news networks are owned by the same companies that fit miniguns to attack helicopters, and whose CEOs are regular guests to <insert power-crazed schmuck here>'s weekend mansion, you can imagine there is not a lot of leeway for accurately, objectively attacking the current status quo. Instead there are edicts from upon high instructing people to toe the line, and the only way people can voice contrary notions is to phrase them as opinion, which in the end just fucks the people up more, as it ceases to be about fact, but who has the best command of emotive phrasiology.

It's going to take a revolution to change this, as the system is geared up in some horrific circle-jerk fashion where the rich have no incentive to change anything for the better (on both sides), and the supposedly "leftist" party would be considered right-wing in any other country in the western world, and so not look out for the average person on the street.

I'd love to hear how the rich will allow themselves to be de-throned, using the current processes and political mechanisms. I really would.

In short - fuck them all.

[Land Shark]

92. OK, but it's the other follks I'm worried about

if they agreed with you, instead of being in a majority harboring at least a doubt (or more), we'd all be in a small minority harboring a doubt (or more). Even if you were 100% right, i'm not sure your point of view has survival value, if you know what I mean, and we do aim to survive and prosper, don't we?

[nam78_two]

73. 71% of African Americans, 54% of Asian Americans...

This works out so well for them in so many ways...Let this go on long enough and minorities are not even going to bother to show up to vote.
What does it say about a party when minority voter suppression is the only way they can win?

[Land Shark]

75. Everyone should ALWAYS vote. Wrong to NOT make them steal it

if we don't vote then the cheating side can win, legitimately... No thanks... (applies mostly to general elections, not everyone can vote in every election)

[nam78_two]

77. No no I am not saying they should give up

But you can see how they might end up feeling that way...disenfranchised people lose hope...specially when it goes on election after election without being challenged...

Its just sad....

[Land Shark]

79. If they conclude we DON'T have a democracy, this should LIBERATE

them into taking action because NOW the actions of our leaders are not ultimately traceable to We the People ELECTING THEM and thus in some measure being responsible for that.... Instead, we know who to blame and it ain't the people's fault, under this state of affairs.

[autorank]

99. "Wrong to not make them steal it." I like that!

That's exactly the deal. Massive voter turnout, make them hand out provisional ballots like crazy, which they'll have to do since they're purging tens of thousands in each state with centralized registraiton databases (voter) courtesy of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA).

We'll turn it into a Festival of Democracy;)

[samsingh]

74. good - this will increase scrutiny on new elections

[bleever]

76. Does this mean I can take off my tin foil hat now?

It's getting kinda sweaty after all this time.

Fantastic article, fantastic development.

:patriot:

[Land Shark]

80. You never NEEDED the tinfoil hat, but if you had it on for self-protection

you can take it off now, yeah.

I say this because NOBODY needs to give a central order from "on high" somewhere in some kind of "grand conspiracy" in order for essentially all Americans to know what needs to be done, when it needs to be done, where it needs to be done, and why... i.e., Swing states, first Tuesday in Nov, get more votes for favorite candidate, because of electoral college and popular vote... The only question is how. So, no big conspiracy is ever needed, and this fits in quite nicely with newly solidified proof that it only takes one person with one machine one minute to rig an election via access to a results disk.

[me b zola]

78. k&r!!!!

:kick:

[Wise Doubter]

85. If Bush has a mandate.....

He better get another Man !

:banghead:

[greatauntoftriplets]

89. Excellent research and analysis.

K&R

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

91. K & R. Great research and analysis---as always.

[DemReadingDU]

94. Thank you for your dedication!

K&R

[Ellipsis]

96. Kicking for Mike and

just a little for Paul.


O8) O8)

Thank you,

again.




edited: to give Mike head billing.

[Land Shark]

97. Lion's share and then some goes to Mike on this one, but thanks.

[Ellipsis]

98. Fair enough

I changed your billing.}(

[autorank]

102. Well, I wouldn't go that far

:rofl:

I mean, if you called us "Martin & Lewis" ... Lewis would have still been a household word. Paul's Lewis, btw;)

[autorank]

101. No thank you.

This survey was a great idea and Zogby's organization had the privilege of working with us...I mean they'd probably have done it for nothing if they'd know it was going to be as much fun as they had? Ya think?

[Ellipsis]

119. .

The first element of greatness is fundamental humbleness; the second is freedom from self; the third is intrepid courage, which, taken in its widest interpretation, generally goes with truth; and the fourth --the power to love --although I have put it last, is the rarest.

Margot Asquith

[autorank]

120. Agreed;)

:rofl:

[autorank]

100. Thank you! Paul's audacious, idea, my question on * - inside stuff below

...of the pretender to the office.

There had been a Zogby Poll in Pennsylvania, a good one, by OpEdNews.Com. I was tempted to just re-do that question nationally and compare the two. But "the scholar" advised me to try and capture the in betweens, the people that were not comfortable saying, outright, it was "stolen."

What a great tip that was! We dropped from 39% saying it was stolen to 32% saying that they literally had no faith in the election, same thing to me. But we picked up the 20% who said they were only "somewhat" ("Slightly", Webster's) confident in the results. Do you put them with the No doubts or doubts...that's the category that emerged. From some doubts to grave doubts, those are the folks who look askance on the * regime. The "somewhat" doubting folks will go in the direction of more serious doubts depending on what * does and events.

If you doubt the most fundamental feature of democracy, the outcome of the most important election, somewhat or seriously, that is very significant.

This is the most serious crisis in public confidence we've had. He can "rule" but he can't "govern."

What a deal. Nothing like it before in my life time.

[stevedeshazer]

103. Incredible...wish I had been here earlier, great job

Somehow, I knew this was true; that a majority believe their vote doesn't count.

It quite literally follows that we no longer live in a republic.

Not that such a notion is new, this just hit me squarely in the head once again, for the umpteenth time in the last five years and more.

Keep the fight for truth going, friend.

[kenny blankenship]

108. about 6 mo into Bush's 1st term 43% doubted the legitimacy of Bush's "win"

I remember that well. Far as I know nothing like that had ever happened in modern times.

[autorank]

111. Amazing isn't it...the guy is like a cat but it's time to pay up...pack up

[autorank]

110. flamingouth....THANKYou for your help on this thread...!!!

...very professional!!!



(I know it's another flaming... but not a bad pic...;)

[flamingyouth]

112. LOL - most excellent!

:yourock:

[Kurovski]

117. Kick!

Thank you, Sir auto!:thumbsup:

[autorank]

118. Always a good day when I see you...

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

[Kurovski]

122. You certainly do know how to get me to keep your threads kicked!

:-):hi: