Hopefully this will explode all over TV. Thank you, Keith Oberman:
Bush's 'Incredible' Vote Tallies
~~By Sam Parry
~~Tuesday 09 November 2004
~~George W. Bush's vote tallies, especially in the key state of Florida, are so statistically stunning that they border on the unbelievable.
~~While it's extraordinary for a candidate to get a vote total that exceeds his party's registration in any voting jurisdiction - because of non-voters - Bush racked up more votes than registered Republicans in 47 out of 67 counties in Florida. In 15 of those counties, his vote total more than doubled the number of registered Republicans and in four counties, Bush more than tripled the number.
~~Statewide, Bush earned about 20,000 more votes than registered Republicans.
~~By comparison, in 2000, Bush's Florida total represented about 85 percent of the total number of registered Republicans, about 2.9 million votes compared with 3.4 million registered Republicans.
~~Bush achieved these totals although exit polls showed him winning only about 14 percent of the Democratic vote statewide - statistically the same as in 2000 when he won 13 percent of the Democratic vote - and losing Florida's independent voters to Kerry by a 57 percent to 41 percent margin. In 2000, Gore won the independent vote by a much narrower margin of 47 to 46 percent.
~~[For details on the Florida turnout in 2000, see http://www.msnbc.com/m/d2k/g/polls.a...ice=P&state=FL. For details on the 2004 Florida turnout, see http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pag...00/index.html].
~~Exit Poll Discrepancies
~~Similar surprising jumps in Bush's vote tallies across the country - especially when matched against national exits polls showing Kerry winning by 51 percent to 48 percent - have fed suspicion among rank-and-file Democrats that the Bush campaign rigged the vote, possibly through systematic computer hacking.
~~Republican pollster Dick Morris said the Election Night pattern of mistaken exit polls favoring Kerry in six battleground states - Florida, Ohio, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada and Iowa - was virtually inconceivable.
~~"Exit polls are almost never wrong," Morris wrote. "So reliable are the surveys that actually tap voters as they leave the polling places that they are used as guides to the relative honesty of elections in Third World countries. … To screw up one exit poll is unheard of. To miss six of them is incredible. It boggles the imagination how pollsters could be that incompetent and invites speculation that more than honest error was at play here."
~~But instead of following his logic that the discrepancy suggested vote tampering - as it would in Latin America, Africa or Eastern Europe - Morris postulated a bizarre conspiracy theory that the exit polls were part of a scheme to have the networks call the election for Kerry and thus discourage Bush voters on the West Coast. Of course, none of the networks did call any of the six states for Kerry, making Morris's conspiracy theory nonsensical. Nevertheless, some Democrats have agreed with Morris's bottom-line recommendation that the whole matter deserves "more scrutiny and investigation." [The Hill, Nov. 8, 2004]
~~Democratic doubts about the Nov. 2 election have deepened with anecdotal evidence of voters reporting that they tried to cast votes for Kerry but touch-screen voting machines came up registering their votes for Bush.
~~In Ohio, election officials said an error with an electronic voting system in Franklin County gave Bush 3,893 extra votes in suburban Columbus, more than 1,000 percent more than he actually got.
~~Yet, without a nationwide investigation, it's impossible to know whether those cases were isolated glitches or part of a more troubling pattern.
~~If Bush's totals weren't artificially enhanced, they would represent one of the most remarkable electoral achievements in U.S. history.
~~In the two presidential elections since Sen. Bob Dole lost to Bill Clinton in 1996, Bush would have increased Republican voter turnout nationwide by a whopping 52 percent from just under 40 million votes for Dole to just under 60 million votes for the GOP ticket in 2004.
~~Such an increase in voter turnout over two consecutive election cycles is not unprecedented, but has historically flowed from landslide victories that see shifting voting patterns, with millions of crossover voters straying from one party to the other.
~~For example, in 1972, Richard Nixon increased Republican turnout by 73.5 percent over Barry Goldwater's performance two elections earlier. But this turnout was amplified by the fact that Goldwater lost in 1964 to Lyndon Johnson by about 23 percentage points and Nixon trounced George McGovern by 23 percentage points.
~~What's remarkable about Bush's increase over the last two elections is that Democrats have done an impressive job boosting their own voter turnout from 1996 to 2004. Over this period, candidates Al Gore and John Kerry increased Democratic turnout by about 18 percent, from roughly 47.5 million votes in 1996 to nearly 56 million in 2004.
~~What this suggests is that Bush is not so much winning his new votes from Democrats crossing over, but rather by going deeper than many observers thought possible into new pockets of dormant Republican voters.
~~But where did these new voters come from, and how did Bush manage to accelerate his turnout gains at a time when the Democratic ticket was also substantially increasing its turnout?
~~While the statistical analysis of these new voters is only just beginning, Bush's ability to find nearly 9 million new voters in an election year when his Democratic opponent also saw gains of about 5 million new voters is the story of the 2004 election.
~~Exit polls also suggest that voters identifying themselves as Republicans voted as a greater proportion of the electorate than in 2000 and that Bush won a slightly greater percent of the Republican vote.
~~The party breakdown in 2000 was 39 percent Democrats, 35 percent Republicans, and 27 percent independents. In 2000, Bush won the Republican vote by 91 percent to 8 percent; narrowly won the independent vote by 47 percent to 45 percent and picked up 11 percent of the Democratic vote compared with Gore's Democratic turnout of 86 percent. [See http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/epolls/US/P000.html for details.]
~~According to exit polls this year, the turnout broke evenly among Democrats and Republicans, with about 37 percent each. Independents represented about 26 percent of the electorate. Kerry actually did better among independents, winning that group of voters by a narrow 49 percent to 48 percent margin.
~~However, Bush did slightly better among the larger number of Republican voters, winning 93 percent of their vote, while matching his 2000 performance by taking about 11 percent of the Democratic vote.
~~While this turnout might strike many observers as unusual in an election year that witnessed huge voter registration and mobilization efforts by Democrats and groups aligned with Democrats, the increased GOP turnout does seem to fit with the campaign strategy deployed by the Bush team to run to the base.
~~From the start of the 2004 campaign, political strategist Karl Rove and the Bush team made its goals clear - maximize Bush's support among social and economic conservatives - including Evangelicals and Club for Growth/anti-government conservatives - and turn them out by driving up Kerry's negatives with harsh attacks questioning Kerry's leadership credentials.
~~This strategy emerged from Rove's estimate after the 2000 election that 4 million Evangelical voters stayed home that year. The Bush/Rove strategy in 2004 rested primarily on turning out that base of support.
~~But, even if one were to estimate that 100 percent of these Evangelical voters turned out for Bush in 2004 and that 100 percent of Bush's 2000 supporters turned out again for him, this still leaves about 5 million new Bush voters unaccounted for.
~~Altogether, Bush's new 9 million votes came mainly from the largest states in the country. But nowhere was Bush's performance more incredible than in Florida, where Bush found roughly 1 million new voters.
I urge all reasonable people to mention this issue to everyone you know.
Watch the report, folks. Especially you doubting thomases (Republicans).
I frankly think they're purposely keeping it low key. Makes me wonder if the reason Kerry conceded so quickly was to try to avoid the "sore loser" syndrome. Let somebody else do the dirty work, expose the fraud, then get sworn in in January.
It may be a pipe dream, or the longest of long shots, but you never know...
Just notice how Conyers stayed VERY low key when asked if he thought this might turn the election. They're playing it very smart.
Maybe for once in our lives the dems are in the process of outmaneuvering the repubs. Wishful thinking, I suppose. But I can dream, can't I?
Funny thing is, the theory about the touch-screens being the big culprit in giving Bush the election since there's no paper trail holds little water if the Florida data is any indication. In the "E-touch" counties, the Democrats actually had a higher "change" (difference between the party registration and vote proportion) than the Republicans. So if anything, it helped the Dems. But the rural counties with the optical scanner machines tipped heavily toward Bush, which comes as little surprise seeing as how we've all heard from Nick that people in rural areas are all poor, low-IQ idiot rednecks, because all the smart people live in the big cities, right? But the thing about the optical scanner machines is that they most certainly DO have a paper trail! So all that has to be done is to get ahold of those ballots and see what's actually marked on them.
What would also be helpful would be to look at past elections and see how the split was in these same counties to see if this is anomalous or if it is consistent with past elections.
It isn't touch-screens per se, but the LACK OF A PAPER TRAIL. In those counties in Florida that have a paper trail, the democratic majority, oddly enough, voted for Kerry. Yet in those counties with NO paper trail, the democratic majority voted for -- guess who? GWB.Originally Posted by Brady Wright
Now if that doesn't raise an eyebrow, what the hell does?
As for the optical scanners, they may indeed have paper trails, but the votes are tallied on a central computer with Diebold software. If it weren't for guys like Nick and me screaming, nobody would even question it.
One of the interesting facts in the MSNBC report is that in Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) 93,000 more votes were cast than there are registered voters. How does that happen? That's a voter participation greater than 100%, top me that's an obvious indication of vote tampering and voter fraud. Equally obvious, this is sopmething that must be investigated.