Scoop, NZ: The Theft Of The 2004 Presidential Election

In case this has not been already posted.. a great compilation of what we know through the vigilant efforts of a tremendous number of dedicated people.



Scoop, NZ: The Theft Of The 2004 Presidential Election

Friday, 9 June 2006, 11:30 am

By Dennis Loo, Ph.D.
Cal Poly Pomona - Ddloo @ csupomona.edu
Published Originally By Project Censored


In order to believe that George Bush won the November 2, 2004 presidential election, you must also believe all of the following extremely improbable or outright impossible things.<1>

1) A big turnout and a highly energized and motivated electorate favored the GOP instead of the Democrats for the first time in history.<2>

2) Even though first-time voters, lapsed voters (those who didn’t vote in 2000), and undecideds went for John Kerry by big margins, and Bush lost people who voted for him in the cliffhanger 2000 election, Bush still received a 3.4 million vote surplus nationally.<3>

3) The fact that Bush far exceeded the 85% of registered Florida Republicans’ votes that he got in 2000, receiving in 2004 more than 100% of the registered Republican votes in 24 out of 67 Florida counties, more than 200% of registered Republicans in 10 counties, over 300% of registered Republicans in 4 counties, more than 400% of Registered Republicans in 4 counties, and over 700% in one county. This could only be explained by a massive crossover vote in these specific counties by registered Democrats and/or Independents. Bush's share of crossover votes by registered Democrats in Florida, however, did not actually increase over 2000 and he lost ground among registered Independents, dropping 15 points. Floridians were just so enthused about Bush and Cheney that they somehow managed to overrule basic math.<4>

4) The fact that Bush got more votes than registered voters, and the fact that by stark contrast participation rates in many Democratic strongholds in Ohio and Florida fell to as low as less than 8%, do not indicate a rigged election.<5>

5) Bush won re-election despite approval ratings below 50% - the first time in history this has happened. Harry Truman has been cited as having also done this, but Truman’s polling numbers were trailing so much behind his challenger, Thomas Dewey, pollsters stopped surveying two months before the 1948 elections, thus missing the late surge of support for Truman. Unlike Truman, Bush’s support was clearly eroding on the eve of the election.<6>

6) Harris' and Zogby’s last-minute polling indicating a Kerry victory was wrong (even though Harris and Zogby were exactly on the mark in their 2000 election final polls).<7>

7) The “challenger rule” - an incumbent’s final results won’t be better than his final polling - was wrong;<8>

8) On election day the early-day voters picked up by early exit polls (showing Kerry with a wide lead) were heavily Democratic instead of the traditional pattern of early voters being mainly Republican.

9) The fact that Bush “won” Ohio by 51-48%, but this was not matched by the court-supervised hand count of the 147,400 absentee and provisional ballots in which Kerry received 54.46% of the vote doesn’t cast any suspicion upon the official tally.<9>

10) Florida computer programmer Clinton Curtis (a life-long registered Republican) must be lying when he said in a sworn affidavit that his employers at Yang Enterprises, Inc. (YEI) and Tom Feeney (general counsel and lobbyist for YEI, GOP state legislator and Jeb Bush’s 1994 running mate for Florida Lt. Governor) asked him in 2000 to create a computer program to undetectably alter vote totals. Curtis, under the initial impression that he was creating this software in order to forestall possible fraud, handed over the program to his employer Mrs. Li Woan Yang, and was told: “You don’t understand, in order to get the contract we have to hide the manipulation in the source code. This program is needed to control the vote in south Florida.” (Boldface in original).<10>

11) Diebold CEO Walden O’Dell’s declaration in a August 14, 2003 letter to GOP fundraisers that he was "committed to helping Ohio to deliver its electoral votes to the president next year" and the fact that Diebold is one of the three major suppliers of the electronic voting machines in Ohio and nationally, didn’t result in any fraud by Diebold.

12) There was no fraud in Warren County, Ohio where they admitted counting the votes in secret before bringing them out in public to count, citing an unidentified FBI agent's warning of a terrorist incident as the rationale, a report that the FBI denies ever making.

13) CNN reported at 9 p.m. EST on election evening that Kerry was leading by 3 points in the national exit polls based on well over 13,000 respondents. Several hours later at 1:36 a.m. CNN reported that the exit polls, now based on a few hundred more - 13,531 respondents - were showing Bush leading by 2 points, a 5-point swing. In other words, a swing of 5 percentage points from a tiny increase in the number of respondents somehow occurred despite it being mathematically impossible.<11>

14) Exit polls in the November 2004 Ukrainian presidential elections, paid for in part by the Bush administration, were right, but exit polls in the U.S., where exit polling was invented, were very wrong.<12>

15) The National Election Pool’s exit polls<13> were so far off that since their inception twenty years ago, they have never been this wrong, more wrong than statistical probability indicates is possible.

16) In every single instance where exit polls were wrong the discrepancy favored Bush, even though statistical probability tells us that any survey errors should show up in both directions. Half a century of polling and centuries of mathematics must be wrong.

snip



(Much more evidence and analysis in this revised compilation of evidence.)

I usually avoid these posts because the depress me too much. If they are true it means we will never win elections so what is the point?

Soon the media will be shamed into reporting.

I have had some e-mail w/ Dennis the man is one of the few who has called
bull shit from the get go.

:7

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1378309&mesg_id=1378784

post # 25

although "Buddy" is always hitting on her ...... and she wants him bad. :rofl:

I'd think that Momma knew who she wanted her Daddy to be.

Steph needs a book, a book tour, and some major exposure. Maybe Buddy could help her along with that...

I am sure mama has some flavor in her life.


BTW look @ these pix from RFK's funeral train.

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0108/train_index.htm

You could "act" like you're pushing her where she really needs to go...

RFK: :patriot:

like mod mom and Botany just won't get over it!


:yourock:

consequences of which have adversely effected the entire planet and will last for generations. This is how I am serving my country-fighting for the truth!

(and Agent Mike, I ain't stopping until the truth is known to all ! )

The crime of the century. Keep spreading the Truth!

That's the story, in two sentences.

:thumbsup:

"Don't blame us... we think we voted for Pat Buchanan!"

:rofl:

I *know* I voted for Pat Buchanan.



2004: Students at UM still voting near midnight?? :eyes:

Can't I circle or check something? 'Al Gore', here it is: punch the top hole, and done. Why are there three holes for Gore and Lieberman? Maybe I should hit the middle one?? Should I ask the girl at the desk? Ah, what's to worry. After all, I don't know a soul voting for Bush."

..... and our paper tells us that we are conspiracy nuts.

But look what just happened in California ..... did Busby really loose or did she get the diebold treatment?

the Ghandi quote used by Rev Bill Moss at the Conyer Hearings held in Columbus (and recorded on Faye and Dzika's excellent film "Illegimate Election":

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you AND THEN YOU ....

You know, like the Hackett election.

stopped the vote count and when it started again Hackett went from dead even
to far enough down to not have an audit of the vote.

in a precinct w 600 signatures...and we're the conspiracy theorists?

and we still can not see the data from Alaska 2004?

and with 30% of the vote in early in Iowa Kerry had a 13 point lead but
the last 70% off the vote came in 3 to 1 for bush (despite the exit polls)
and he won the state.

and New Mexico where every county that had opti scan went to bush ...
.... even the ones that went to Gore in 2000?

and Wyoming's 106 % turn out?

and ...............................................

Never give up.

"1) A big turnout and a highly energized and motivated electorate favored the GOP instead of the Democrats for the first time in history"

That was also the simpleton theory on DU prior to the election, that we were much more motivated and enthusiastic than the GOP. Backed up by wonderful little trivia like, "my Republican mother-in-law is voting for Kerry!"

Meanwhile, every poll the entire year warned Bush's supporters were significantly more enthusiastic on his behalf. You didn't even need those polls. Just remember the ABB or "Anyone But Bush" atmosphere. Always ominous, depending on rejection of the other guy and not a passionate support of your own candidate.

Here's the vital paragraph from PEW's final pre-election release, one that correctly forecast a Bush win of 51-48 and that the late undecideds would break only slightly for Kerry: http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=906

"As in previous polls, Bush's supporters are much more enthusiastic than those backing Kerry. In fact, Bush registers a higher percentage of strong supporters in the final weekend of the campaign than any candidate since former President Ronald Reagan in 1984. Fully 39% of likely voters support Bush strongly, while 9% back him only moderately. Roughly three-in-ten likely voters say they support Kerry strongly (32%), and 13% back him moderately, a pattern more typical of recent presidential candidates."

It's not about the "simpleton theory" you ascribe to DU in general; it's massive Democratic success in voter registration, hemmorhage of * 2000 voters to Kerry, the heavy advantage Kerry had among new voters, independents, and undecideds, and the massive campaign by Kenneth Blackwell to disenfranchise as many Democratic voters in as many ways as possible.

Referring to a "simpleton theory" on DU does a disservice to the many thousands of serious and dedicated hours of work done on the details here at DU.

Elections are won on preference. We were never going to overwhelm the GOP based on motivation or new voters. In fact, the Republicans were quietly registering new voters from 2001 through spring 2004, plus the GOTV emphasis after our unions and ground game buried them in '98 and '00. Our approach was a last minute flurry of new registers and we wanted to pretend it erased everything the GOP did for 3+ years. Not reality. I'm hardly saying this now, trying to rationalize 2004. There were plenty of threads before the election including several from myself, that Kerry needed to win on preference and we were setting ourselves up for a significant letdown if we believed the hype about hidden cell phone users or motivation or registration advantage.

We also tried to deny Bush had a significant advantage as an incumbent with his party in office only one term. That's now 9 successful re-elections in 10 attempts (Carter, 1980) since 1900. There is a natural benefit of a doubt in that scenario. Just look at the huge percentages in that situation: Ike '56, Nixon '72, Reagan '84, Clinton '96. Also LBJ '64 if you want to count that one, party one term in office but of course the tragic event. Plus Bush had 9/11 and national security fear in his corner. As long as his appproval rating didn't plummet to Carter or Bush 41 territory he was not as vulnerable as we wanted to believe, especally since our candidate was not charismatic. Only Reagan and Clinton have ousted a presidential incumbent in the TV era. How did John Kerry fit in that group? It's why I supported John Edwards.

I completely go along with the Blackwell concerns and all the low tech vote suppression and disenfranchisement. In fact, I'm sure it's more widespread in low doses than we realize. How we fail to anticipate and prevent somne of it in the high profile obvious states is what baffles me. I mean, Ohio was targeted as the key state for 2004 immediately after 2000 yet here we are in June 2006 still trying to pick apart Franklin, etc.

This is a numbers forum and I work in sports stats, dabbling in political application. I don't pretend to have the mathematical expertise of many of the impressive posters here. But I research and understand situational aspects, which can trump the numbers time after time. For instance, in 2012 we should have a decided advantage, regardless of the 2008 result. You'll either have a Democratic incumbent with his party in office only one term, or a Republican incumbent facing national unrest after the GOP controlling the White House three straight cycles. Four in a row hasn't happened since Roosevelt/Truman. Ironically, the only thing that might diminish that edge is Bush's incompetence. The voters might not care if the GOP has been in office three straight terms, if the new Republican is seen as such a massive improvement over Bush. I suggest we win in 2008.

you probably acknowledge some doubt.


ed:sp

There is another side to this observation.... which I discussed here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1369716&mesg_id=1371038

We are being asked to beleive that - at the same time that the GOP was going all out to prevent registration using a variety of sophisticated methods to make registration difficult they simultaneously achieved the most successful registration drive in political history.

There is a fundamental disconnect here.

I had never seen it before - I saw a link on Jonathan Simon's site - and since it cited TIA as a source thought it worthy of archiving on Scoop.

what are the implications if that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt? . . .

what happens in America when a candidate outright steals an election and is in power for a full term plus before the theft is proven? . . .

would John Kerry become president? . . .

Dennis Hastert? . . .

would we just do without one until the next election? . . .

would we hold a special election? . . .

personally, I have no idea how something like that would play out . . .