Posted on 09/02/2005 11:42:49 AM PDT by AWest
Ten Good Reasons to Believe that the 2004 Presidential Election Was Stolen
The question of what role election fraud played in determining the results of the 2004 Presidential election can be validly approached by consideration of either the total U.S. popular vote or the election results in Ohio. Ohio, because the addition of that state alone to John Kerry’s column would have given him an electoral victory. And the popular vote, because it is inconceivable that there was enough election fraud to switch the popular vote from Kerry to Bush without switching Ohio as well – given the relatively close race in Ohio and the fact that the evidence for fraud in Ohio over-shadows that in any other state. This thread summarizes 5 reasons in each category that I believe strongly suggest that John Kerry would be President today if we had had an honest election.
The Popular Vote
(Excerpt) Read more at vvlobbydays.blogspot.com ...
It's absurd that people actually believe this.
Not only do they believe this, but they're wasting their time and effort on this crap during a time of national crisis.
And could you imagine sKerry in charge at a time like this? The whole southeast would be under water right now. It makes me sick to think about it.
Sigh. The evidence for this article comes from ... Democratic Underground. Anyway, let's count the errors:
1) Believing that mid-day polls were somehow more accurate than vote totals. People don't vote in equal number throughout the day, which skews the totals, and the totals become especially off when democratic groups were sending people to the sites where they knew the polls were taking place to skew the vote totals.
2) Believing pre-election polls (and only certain polls, i.e., the ones that showed Bush losing) were accurate. Republicans have reported being under-represneted in polls for years.
3)Believing that network internal polls, which were wrong in 2002, 2000, 1998, 1996, & 1994, were somehow accurate this time.
Arrrgh. Look. We did hundreds of threads about this around election time. The basic problem of the DU studies is simple: It assumes the exit polls were accurately modelled and unbiased. There is no evidence in either case that they were.
I've actually sent him information about the exit polls several times. It was the BS about vote-switching, the recount and voter suppression that I wanted to nail him on to get him to shut up once and for all.
President Bush beat EVERY "anybody but Bush" candidate combined.
The bigger question is if we would ever have elected Bill Clinton, let alone twice, if there had been runoff elections. And yet he claimed he had a mandate from the people.
Kerry would be blaming the Republican led Congress and former President Bush.
There is a word for why the polls were skewed the way they were on election day: Zogbyism.
They wanted to supress the Republican vote by sheer biased media reporting. Make it up. Like they did with the faked National Guard memos.
Zogbyism continues to this day.
I love that tagline. My town has a bunch of "smart growth" advocates that are trying to kill a proposed new mall. Bunch of old professor-types. I see the "No New Mall" signs and see nothing but "I've Got Mine".
Here's an old thread "real time" discussion of how the media was calling the election for Kerry all day...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1266986/posts
The numbers at the end of the counting gave no reason for this assumption to be broadcast hourly as "news".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.