What Was the Role of Fraud in the 2004 Presidential Election?

[Time for change]

I have recently posted a thread that discusses several reasons to believe that election fraud determined the results of the 2004 election – meaning that John Kerry would now be our President if not for election fraud. Here is the thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2052179


What do you believe was the role of election fraud in determining the results of the 2004 Presidential election?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[autorank]

2. FRAUD popular vote & FRAUD electoral vote: Reat the Truth

The Unanswered Question: Who Really Won In 2004?

Monday, 18 July 2005, 2:53 pm
Opinion: DU Elections Forum
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0507/S00238.htm

By DU Poster Autorank
Posted at Democratic Underground
Statistical Analysis by TruthIsAll
See also... this annotated thread. It’s all in the numbers

According to the vote tabulators, in the 2004 presidential election George W. Bush won a stunning victory that defied all odds, particularly those applied by unbiased statisticians. He won despite trailing in most state and national polls. He won despite an approval rating of less than 50%, usually the death knell for an incumbent presidential candidate. He won despite trailing in the three National Exit Polls three timelines from 4pm to 12:22 am (13047 respondents) by a steady 48%-51%, miraculously winning the final exit poll (with only 613 additional respondents, totaling 13,660). This poll was “weighted” (altered) to meet the reported election result on the assumption that the reported result was accurate -- quite an assumption. The final poll showed a stunning reversal of the Kerry 51%-48% poll margin, which had been measured consistently all day by the same polling group: major news/networks and polling firm Edison-Mitofsky.

The analysis of exit polls and documented fraud in this election began on the Internet. A number of academics posted detailed work showing the near-impossible odds of Bush overcoming deficits in the state exit polls and the National Exit Polls. Much of this analysis comes from “TruthIsAll” (TIA), a poster on DemocraticUnderground.Com. TIA has a background and several degrees in applied mathematics. Using various elements of the national and state exit polls and other data sources, he produces results that are thorough, detailed, sober and compelling. He shows ALL data and calculations, while encouraging others to check his math. Only once did he make a minor math error, after asking DUers to check his calculation of probability that at least 16 states would deviate beyond their exit poll margin of error and go for Bush. The answer turned out to be one in 19 trillion! The debates on DemocraticUnderground’s “2004: Election Results and Discussion” forum are legendary and have attracted observers from all over the Net.
ADVERTISEMENT

Before the election, TIA produced a daily update of his Election Model site. On 11/1/04, based on extensive statistical analysis, he projected a Kerry win of 51.63% to 48.38%, using a combined average of national polls, and of 51.80% to 48.2% using a Monte Carlo simulation of individual state polls. After the polls closed, data from the Edison Mitofsky NEP survey (sponsored by the major television networks and CNN) was unintentionally released over the Internet. This was internal network data, embargoed from public use, data with statements like “Estimates not for on-air use” and “This page cannot be displayed.” The networks had locked down this data for their own use in an “electronic cover-up” that was offensive to those who knew the story. Luckily for all of us, Jonathan Simon downloaded the exit poll data and saved the CNN screen shots! The Edison-Mitofsky (EM)-Corporate Media (CM) “embargoed data” was available for anyone with eyes to see it and a mind to review it.

TruthIsAll immediately began analyzing and publishing analyses on the forbidden data. Looking at the demographics on the second to last E-M major network poll, he laid out the set of improbable circumstances needed for Bush to win: “To believe Bush won the election, you must also believe….” This post was cited by Will Pitt in a major blog, which gave it wide visibility on the Net. “KERRY WON THE FEMALE VOTE BY A HIGHER PERCENTAGE THAN BUSH WON THE MALE VOTE…AND MORE WOMEN (54%) VOTED THAN MEN (46%).” It was all right there, polling results that we were never intended to see. But this was only the beginning. There are over 100 individual analytical postings that demonstrate the tremendous odds against a Bush win. This high-level analysis dovetailed with and was confirmed by on-the-ground stories of voting rights violations all over the country, particularly in Ohio.

[applegrove]

3. Voter suppression in a myriad of ways - cause that is not prosecutable.

Diebold stealing didn't happen. Repukes are just not that stupid.

[MadeinOhio]

4. I've seen absolute evidence that they are and they did. n/t

[Time for change]

7. Why would that make them stupid?

They got away with it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Fraud is common in every presidential election. Effects are minimal.

Fretting about machines and such is probably worthwhile for future elections, but the focus should be on the effect of the money offered by the capitalists and pursued by the politicians.

That is what makes "democracy" in America an almost laughable hoax.

[Time for change]

6. The effect of money on our elections is bad

But it is still possible to win an election even when being outspent. In 2004 there was a great deal of grass roots support for Kerry. He received tons more small donations than Bush and was not that far behind in the money contest.

It didn't help at all, of course, that the MSM was behind Bush the whole way.

But what could make it harder to win an election than being in a position where the political opposition counts the votes?