Posted on 11/28/2004 3:14:14 PM PST by Owen
A semi vanity, but here's the excerpt:
By suspicious, Jackson is referring to the latest analysis of the Nov. 2 vote by a coalition of Ohio voting rights activists. In analyzing the still-unofficial results, the totals reveal that C. Ellen Connally, an African-American Democratic candidate from Cleveland for Ohio Chief Justice, received more than 257,000 votes than Kerry.
In Butler County, for example, Connally had 45,457 more votes than Kerry. The reason these vote counts are suspect is because Connelly, a retired African-American judge, was vastly outspent in her race, and did not have the visibility of the presidential race. Thus for a more obscure Democratic candidate, farther down on the ticket, to get a quarter of a million more votes statewide than Kerry, suggests something happened to suggest there may have been a transfer of Kerry votes to Bush.
. . . . . . .
“Statistically, Kerry, as the Democratic presidential candidate, should have more votes than Connally. In a presidential election, most voters have the priority of casting a vote for president and the votes for president are almost always much higher than those of candidates farther down the ticket. When voters vote for Democratic candidates farther down the ticket, it is usually being driven by a sample ballot from the Party, starting at the top with president. Many voters simply don’t vote for Supreme Court justices. It is highly improbable that Connally’s vote totals would be so much higher than Kerry’s,” Fitrakis said.
Stop wasting your time. Voters have no idea who these people are. There is no advertising to speak of and no party affiliation on teh ballot.
Good democrats voted straight D except at the top of the ticket, even they could not bring themselves to put an admitted war criminal and traitor in the White House. Any more questions?
Ive never voted along party lines. Around here lots of people voted almost exclusively democrat except in the presidential race.
Let me put it another way. It is unethical for a judicial candidate to advertise his party affiliation in Ohio. OK?
Bingo.
In other words, this whole argument is based on a lie (that she was a "Democratic candidate").
There's your answer, Owen. You fell for a hoax.
Absolutly! Only voters who are lawyers have any idea what the Supreme Court candidates stand for and what party they are endorsed by.
I like arithmetic, and I wanted to play with the numbers a little bit myself.
Interesting, to me at least, that Ms Connally still didn't get enough votes to win. So even if Kerry got every vote she got, and President Bush every vote her opponent got, Kerry still would've lost.
I don't know the source of the numbers and I've been looking and I'm beginning to think Jesse Jackson has been had. This stuff essentially came from him.
This is typical low level liberal logic, they must ignore the obvious question, If they had some way of manufacturing votes (250,000?) why would they advance the Republican president but not the lower level candidate? Why not "transfer" all the votes along party lines? This is the method the dems used during the 2000 recount in florida.
I am partially incorrect. While party affiliation does not appear on any ballot for Supreme Court, candidates are allowed to disclose party endorsements in thier print and media ads. Point is, they don't advertise in any significant way.
"When voters vote for Democratic candidates farther down the ticket, it is usually being driven by a sample ballot from the Party, starting at the top with president."
I mean, what?!
I would wager that most voters pay little to no attention to party slate cards.
>
There's your answer, Owen. You fell for a hoax.
>
It's looking possible. This stuff is from Jackson's staff and they may have been fed bad numbers. I'm seeing some evidence that the numbers are not correct even in raw form.
It seemed wise to get the data presented so rebuttals could be formed ASAP.
I'd appreciate it if we don't bring flame wars to other unrelated threads.
This is Jesse Jackson we're talking about?
Jesse Jackson is a liar and a fool. If Jesse Jackson is involved in the distribution of information, that information may always safely be ignored.
Thus if you are not politically active you don't have a clue so its more like pin the tail on the donkey. So if the Dems are more familiar with their Supremes and the Reps are like a laser voting for George and top of the ballot Reps.. you might get an unnatural bias to a Dem Supreme Court candidate. Rep voters being random and the Dems voting as a block. Thats my bet. Lame.. an unknown Supreme Court candidate woops SKerry.. too... lol.
Reminds me of the BIG scandal in Florida where it was statistically impossible that all of those counties who had more democrats than reps in northern Florida but voted in waves for GW.
I was more right than wrong: Here is the final answer:
(b) After the day of the primary election, a judicial candidate shall not identify himself or herself in advertising as a member of or affiliated with a political party.
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/Rules/conduct/#canon7
"Thus for a more obscure Democratic candidate, farther down on the ticket, to get a quarter of a million more votes statewide than Kerry, suggests something happened to suggest there may have been a transfer of Kerry votes to Bush."
Not from Ohio however...If this is indicative of Democrat logic it becomes very apparent why they lost the presidential election. Have they never heard of splitting votes??
If they're relying on this to get the Ohio Supreme Court to name Kerry the winner based on this hogwash, they better brace themselves for another drubbing.
Easy to explain; more dems went for Bush than the left wuld care to admit..
There aren't many Dems in Warren county; at least not more than 30%.
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.