Posted on 11/12/2004 6:59:39 AM PST by calreaganfan
Pres. Bush has now garnered a truly astounding 60,724,666 votes in the 2004 election, and there are still hundreds of thousands of votes remaining to be counted. Not only has Pres. Bush exceeded his 2000 total by more than 10 million votes, he has also broken Pres. Reagan's 1984 vote record by more than 6 million votes!! The AP election results which are linked to this post are way behind because they do not include an add'l 517,000 votes that Pres. Bush has received in CA plus hundreds of thousands of add'l votes that Pres. Bush has received in AZ, MD, NC, OR, RI, SC, and VA. See below for vote totals by state that was compiled from the secretaries of state websites.
"I recall during Election Day some liberal bastard said, "people don't turn out in droves to re-elect the same President, they show up to make a change". I wish I could recall who said that I would love to Freep the sucker!"
But they do when their way of life is under attack and they want to make sure the right guy STAYS at the job.
I'll Freep him with ya!
EXCELLENT!
this is great
If we can make voter fraud harder to get by with and with severe penalities, we could get within the 50% range.
There is a big political change with Mexican Americans. I have yet to see the % which voted for GW, but it apparently falls into the 45% range like the rest of the state. The rats push for Gay Marriage will drive more of them away from the rat party.
The unrelentless push by the gay activists for gay marriage is have an impact on many black voters. We have a Black friend who has been conservative since Clintoon came on the scene. He has been a political outcast with his family, his wife and her family and many friends. This year his wife voted for GW and several of his sisters and two of her brothers voted for GW because of the gay marriage agenda of the rats. They are still a minority in their group, but he is no longer by himself. He feels very encouraged with this change in his family and a few of his friends.
8 Senators of our 55 are from Blue States.
ME (2)
PA (2)
NH (2)
RI (1)
OR (1)
RI is the only one in a non-swing state.
Frankly, our biggest problem is six Democrat Senators sitting in the following seats in non-swing state Red states:
ND (2)
SD (1, was 2 Bye bye Tommy boy!)
MT (1)
NE (1)
IN (1)
AR and WV will take a lot more time to work on to depose the Democrat incumbents. OTOH, there is no reason for a state voting 58-66% Republican for President, like those above, to elect 1 or 2 Democrats to the Senate.
We could also use just a single Senate seat in the following swing states - WI, MI, NJ, IL, WA, and DE, like we have in NM, IA, MN, OR.
Do that - take our Prarie stronghold and split the swing states, and we have 68 Republicans in the Senate.
Haven't you answered that question by asking it?
Perhaps. I think the victory margin will be between 3.5 to 4 million.
I agree with that. I suppose I'd say two sets should be considered. One, of the real candidates (Bush, Kerry); one, of the real candidates plus a third category — other (or Who Were You Kidding?).
Dan
Hillary's Right-Wing conspiracy is getting "vaster" and "vaster."
Just a note to the manic libs who see the problem as so called rednecks living in red states. If you remove NYC from NY State, Kery wins by 61,000 votes. If you remove Philly from Pa. Bush wins by 290,000 votes. I think the Dems should take a longer look at the Red Counties and not just the Red States.
AP MUST HAVE HEARD ME!!
AP just updated their vote totals to include the latest #'s from CA. They now show Pres. Bush with 60,358,656 votes (compared to 59,841,499 earlier this morning). AP is still way off because they have not updated AZ, MD, NC, OR, RI, SC and VA which have all had significant jumps in their vote totals.
Have you seen any articles or discussions on possible vote fraud in Milwaukee? Before the election there was some controversy over the number of ballots requested by the city vs. the number of residents. I haven't seen anything since the election
There is a tidal change coming.
Pres. Bush didn't accidentally choose Gonzalez as AG. Nor did he accidentally put Estrada up for judicial nomination. The Hispanic community noticed and realized they'd be far better off being a swing bloc than a wholly owned (and ignored) subsidiary of the elitist, liberal establishment.
There is no doubt that Bush had to overcome many more obstacles to achieve a second term than Reagan. Considering the onslaught of the Dems, MSM, and the 527's, which spewed the worst lies and propaganda ever against a sitting President during an election cycle, Bush's victory is impressive. However, Reagan's victory in 1984 was the most lopsided in American history. Reagan won by 17 million votes and took over 97% of the electoral votes (525 to 13).
Well, Reagan won an overwhelming 64% of the white vote in 1984, compared to Bush's 58% this year. That, more than anything, accounts for the difference in margins. Had Bush won 64% of the white vote he would have won almost every state.
Now clearly all of the illegal aliens granted amnesty under Reagan have hurt the GOP since most of them who have gone on to vote no doubt vote mostly for the Dems, but the GOP's inability to repeat Reagan's performance with whites shouldn't be forgotten.
And anyway, Bush is also pushing for a form of amnesty, so clearly the GOP hasn't learned anything, even about the dire political consequences for themselves by granting the 'path to citizenship' to future Dem voters.
At least Reagan regretted signing that amnesty into law; I believe calling it his biggest regret. Not that it excuses him, but Bush seems to have no qualms about his proposal even with history as a guide.
Nobody talks about it publicly, but I'm really curious about the extent of vote corruption.
I presume there are places where the Republicans do it too, but I think that is dwarfed by the Democrats in the big cities.
Does Democrat ballot stuffing increase every election cycle, or did the Republicans manage to cut back the cheating from 2000?
I wish they would do something over the next four years to tighten up the process, stop this business of registering on election day, stop the habit of one person voting in two different states, and require positive picture ID well before the vote takes place. Moreover I think registration should have to be done in person by the voters themselves, and not by people who are paid to collect registrations. Those who are ill or unable to get to the registrar or town clerk could petition for an exception to this rule.
We also need better poll watcher in the inner cities, because I suspect that any registered voters who don't make it to the polls are voted by the local Democrat committees.
Now is the time to do it, while the media are on the defensive and less able to cry "foul" or "racism."
Nearly 5 million Californian's vote for Bush nearly a half a million more then the next closest state, yet we have to hear how we are part of the left coast blah blah, though we have as many Bush voters as 10 red states combined.
Grrr..
California is a huge bastion of support for the President also. Don't forget it.
This just proves the DUmmies case. There was fraud!!
[/sarcasm]
But why has it been shrinking. I've been watching it every hour of every day, recording the shrinkage and cannot believe it. Why would the Provisional ballots be anything like near enough to change the percentage? Where are the military ballots? Are ALL BALLOTS counted, even in states that are clear cut for one or the other candidates in terms of electoral votes? Or do they just stop counting them when the difference won't make a difference? I'm beginning to become suspicious now of real foul play, and not on our part.
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.