How Jean Schmidt "WON" against Paul Hackett. "Won" as in "lost"!

[autorank]

In August 05, Jean Schmidt “won” a special election in Ohio for Congress. That event allowed her to expel her venom at a fine man. It’s worth looking at that election. The article3 below was published on 08/28/05. It was stimulated by work of adolfo, TruthIsAll, eomer, garybeck, tommcintyre and other DUers did on the strange numbers and occurrences in the “known for strange elections” Clermont County. THIS IS HOW SCHMIDT GOT THERE. AT THIS POINT, I’M SURE HACKETT ACTUALLY WON. See what you think..


http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0508/S00186.htm

The Veteran Of Fallujah Defeated By OH's Humidity
Tuesday, 23 August 2005, 10:54 pm

DÉJÀ VU ALL OVER AGAIN?
DEMOCRAT HACKETT LOSES A SQUEAKER IN
OHIO’S 2nd CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:
THE NEW VOTING RIGHTS STRUGGLE 2004-2005
Tuesday, 23 August 2005, 10:54 pm
by autorank
DemocraticUnderground.Com

<snip>


Hackett greets fellow vet former Sen. Max Cleland, D, GA.
Cleland was injured in Viet Nam. Cleland lost a questionable
Senate election in Georgia in 2002.

Hackett emerges as a threat.
The Democratic Party started out with little hope of winning, yet the race became competitive. Charles Sanders had never topped 28% in four tries against Portman. This election was different, with the Republicans absent the benefit of incumbency. As a veteran Cincinnati Enquirer reporter said prophetically on May 26, the Democrats saw “a faint crack of light through a door that may not open again for many years if they do not field the strongest possible candidate.” Hackett was viewed by both the leadership and party voters as that type of candidate. He had won a five-person primary with 56% of the vote in his first major political outing (he served on a town council previously).

Hackett runs a strong campaign.
Hackett had three major advantages that many Democratic candidates lack. He had just finished an active duty tour in the military, he aggressively engages in intense political combat without flinching, and he has a concealed weapons carry permit. In addition to that, he opposes the war in Iraq with firsthand knowledge, is strong on national security, and has harsh comments for his Republican opponents. In a Cincinnati Post statement, Hackett said of Schmidt, “If you think America needs another career politician steeped in a culture of corruption who does as she’s told and toes the line on failed policies, then I’m not your candidate.” He referred to Schmidt as a “rubber stamp” Republican. He called Republican supporters of the war “chicken hawks” and he was harshly critical of President Bush. Just before the election, Hackett said of Bush, “I don’t like the son of a bitch who lives in the White House but I’ll put my life on the line for him.”

Hackett raised significant funds locally and from Internet activist Democrats…

The humidity crisis.
Then it happened: the “humidity” crisis. For pure drama, it could not have occurred at a more dramatic point in the vote tabulation. Of Clermont County’s 191 precincts, 100 had been counted. Then the Board of Elections announced that excessive humidity had caused ballots to swell, making them difficult to count. As a result, there would be a delay in the count. At this point, the election was dead even statistically, at 50% for each candidate. The 91 precincts in Clermont represented about 12% of the remaining vote. When the crisis was resolved, the 50-50% tie changed into a 52% to 48% victory for Schmidt.

<snip>

Questions not asked about the vote count stoppage.
The sudden stoppage of vote tabulation in Clermont was reminiscent of nearby Warren County’s Board of Elections citizen-media lockout during vote counting in 2004, which county officials claimed to be the result of a Homeland Security alert. There was no alert.
Was humidity the reason the optical scanning machine count stopped in Clermont, or was there some “intelligent design?” Humidity can impact the ability of optical scan counting machines to process paper ballots. It is not frequently reported and there are clear instructions providing easy remedies (e.g. air condition polling and tabulation facilities). The state of Louisiana made its 2003 RFP for voting machines contingent on tolerating a 98% humidity rate, for example. Air conditioning is reported to be widely available in Clermont County, as are dehumidifiers.

Why were 91 precincts impacted while 100 others were not in the same County?

Information about the locations of the humidity-impacted districts is unavailable. Was each of the 91 precincts without air conditioning? That would be a 48% rate of precincts exposed to conditions that the Board had to know could create problems. For them to announce problems with ballots due to humidity after the fact is remarkable. Certainly, they knew that humidity could be an issue. Just days before the special election there were extensive reports of a serious heat and humidity wave in the Cincinnati area. The regions largest newspaper, The Cincinnati Enquirer had been talking about the heat and humidity days before the election. Surely humidity on Election Day should have been taken into account.

Was there a one-to-one match between precincts with “humidified” ballots and precincts without air conditioning?

If so, why were nearly half of the precincts exposed to humidification? And if this is not so, if some of the 91 precincts with ballot problems due to humidity had air conditioning and some did not, how does the Board explain humidity problems in precincts with air conditioning?

Was Clermont the only part of the 2nd District that was affected by humidity that day and if so, why?

Clermont used optical scan paper ballots. Five other counties used punch card paper ballots, which have a similar or greater vulnerability to expansion or distortion due to humidity. There were no reports of problems in those five counties related to humidity. What is the critical variable that makes Clermont ballots vulnerable to distortion due to excessive moisture? Were precincts all air conditioned in the five counties that used punch card paper ballots? Was there something like an intense thermal inversion going on above the 91 precincts in Clermont County?

Why did the Board of Elections allow precincts to operate that lacked sufficient air conditioning to prevent humidity?
These questions need to be answered given the prior questions raised and documented about Clermont. The Board of Elections operates all year round. There is sufficient time to study manuals, attend vendor-sponsored retreats, and talk to nearby officials. Nearly half of the Clermont precincts had humidified ballots. A failure rate of nearly 50% is totally unacceptable performance for an election and offers the most unflattering commentary on those who are supposed to run it efficiently.

Precincts with the most votes favored Schmidt at nearly 100%, with Hackett winning in only those with less than 200 votes counted.

A review of precinct level results by TruthIsAll on DemocraticUnderground reveals this interesting trend. This data is preliminary and more detail needs to be obtained from the Clermont Board of Elections. However, the trend observed for Clermont makes little sense on the face of it.

Hackett won 38 of 191 Clermont precincts with fewer than 187 votes, but lost ALL of the largest 54 precincts (those with more than 187 votes each). This is reflected in the following graph produced by DemocraticUnderground poster TruthIsAll on of the first election fraud analysts to notice anomalies in Clermont County.
Graph: Hackett won 38 of 191 Clermont precincts but lost ALL of the 54 largest


The following percentages help elaborate the graph above.

Hackett’s percentage by precinct group size:
46.9% in precincts under 100 votes
43.5% in precincts of 100-200 votes
39.6% in precincts of 200-300 votes
34.6% in precincts of 300 + votes

These results raise interesting questions. Why does Hackett do much better in the smaller precincts? Are they more rural than the larger precincts? If so, does this not present a counterintuitive pattern, with the Democrat taking some of the conservative, less populated areas and the Republican winning all of the precincts in the most populated areas?

The following graph, also produced by TruthIsAll, answers the question. As he said while commenting on this data on 8/5/05: “The regression line has zero slope. Voters turned out at a fairly constant rate across precincts. So turnout wasn't a factor in explaining why the Schmidt vote percentage increased as precinct size increased.
”
Graph: No Correlation between Precinct Registration and Voter Turnout


(The article goes on to show Hackett won the most rural precincts by 60-40% and should have carried more populated areas or at least broken even. The last four elections, no Democrat broke 30%! Hackett was on a roll, until the infamous Clermont & Warren Counties pulled it out for Schmidt.)

[dsc]

1. I will say this on the humidity issue

Many polling places in Ohio, as in many other states, are schools and churches. In Ohio neither of those types of buildings are likely to be air conditioned. Many schools in Ohio date from the early 20th century through the great depression era. It is hardly shocking that a large number of polling places in any Ohio county would lack air conditioning.

[autorank]

2. Be sure not to actually read the article. It will change your mind.

The last 100 precincts to be counted were THE ONLY PRECINCTS WITH HUMIDITY PROBLEMS. Calculate the odds on that and get back to us.

[IndyOp]

15. Probably humidity rises during the evening in Ohio --

unlike all other places on earth. :sarcasm:

"The last 100 precincts to be counted were THE ONLY PRECINCTS WITH HUMIDITY PROBLEMS." -

That fact alone nails it. Has anyone had a forceful 'intervention' with Hackett? I know that Rosebud57 made sure someone in Hackett's campaign got a copy of your paper, but there is no guarantee he read or believe it -- it takes a lot to overcome people's belief in accuracy of computers and the impossibility of cheating in many locales.

[dsc]

17. The humidity problem would be when the votes were cast not when they are

counted. Frankly no one on earth thought we would even come close to winning and we nearly snuck one out. This wasn't stolen.

[autorank]

19. The humidity problem would not occurr for the last 100 precincts

consistently. Your desire to have Schmidt legitimized is assertive considering the circumstances. The ballots sit around all day long in the humidity (as you tell it). There was an exact division between the last precinct counted and the last 100 tabulated after "their little fix." Give it up, this is way too much even for a "coincidence theorist." The election stunk.

[dsc]

23. First there were several different methods of voting

some of which humidity affected and some of which humidity didn't. Secondly, clearly if something is slowing down counting it will tend to make the precincts involved slower. Just like the slowest marthon runners tend to finish last. That isn't rocket science.

[IndyOp]

24. Do you know all about how the machines can be rigged,

about how the votes tallies can be changed as the votes come in, and about who owns the vote machine companies and writes the software?

I am curious when I encounter people who are so quick to decide that fraud did not occur in a particular race whether they know that it could easily occur in virtually any race these days. All votes (from paper ballots and vapor ballots) go to PCs called "central tabulators" and the vote tallies can be changed in seconds on these computers. Further, the Ohio SOS has a central tabulator on his desk that can be used to change tallies coming in from precincts all over the state.

My point, respectfully, is that just because there are alternative, perfectly logical explanations for why an election result appears a particular way - it does not mean that another explanation (fraud) is ruled out.

Video: Bev Harris shows Howard Dean how to alter election results on CT - <http://www.votergate.tv/>

Republican White Hat Hacker Chuck Herrin: Paper Ballots Now! <http://www.chuckherrin.com/paperballots.htm>

Is it a coincidence that a man convicted of 23 felony counts of theft in the first degree was employed by Diebold as Senior Vice President of Development? <snip>

Now, there is an affidavit signed by a Florida software developer named Cliff Curtis, swearing under penalty of perjury that he was asked by Florida congressman Tom Feeney to create a prototype for vote switching software. The reason? To quote "control the black vote in South Florida". <snip>

Have we lost our frickin' minds? We don't even have paper receipts, much less ballots! And it's not just the touchscreens - that's something else that a lot of people are missing. You have to take a step one level back in the tabulation process to the computers that actually do the tallying. That's where votes from touchscreens, as well as optically scanned AND absentee ballots come together to be counted. Don;t get me wrong - these touchscreens suck- but the problem is bigger than just that. Lemme tell you about just one of these systems. It's the General Election Management Software, or GEMS, made by Diebold. You know Diebold, the folks who hired felons, the ones that make ATMs but say they can't put printers on voting machines?

These GEMS machines run on that most secure and stable operating system- Microsoft Windows. Mostly Windows 2000. GEMS is designed to work with Office - it says so on Diebold's site. These machines are connected by modem pools, network connections, or the Internet, and they receive the vote data from the reporting precincts, where it is then "counted". If you would like to see the security of this software, I'd like for you to go to www.chuckherrin.com/hackthevote. I will walk you through how easy it is to change tens of thousands of vote, then show you the time stamped reports and audit logs to prove that it doesn't leave a trace. It's so easy, it's not even really hacking. Anyone who has used MS office has done this before. It's incredible, and Diebold and elections officials have known about it for years. Internet memos reveal that being able to change votes in the backend databases "have gotten people out of a bind," and Gaston County, NC and King County WA are specifically mentioned as having done it in the past. This is known criminal activity, that has gone without action, for years. In my first demo of changing votes in a fictional election, I was able to change 11,963 votes in a couple of minutes, and in my second, called speed-hacking the vote, I changes over 1.6 Million votes in 6 minutes, while generating 3 timestamped "official" reports and audit logs showing no trace of wrongdoing. Computers made this possible. Computers enable criminals and those with evil intent to do more than ever before. Before we started using computers, you couldn't hack paper ballots at a distance. Well, now you can.

How hard would it be for one person to change 11,963 PAPER ballots? How long would it take? Could they do it from a distance?

No. But they can now, and not even leave a trace. Don't believe me? That's fine - check out my site and I'll show you exactly how to do it.

The safest bet at this point - safest for democracy - is to expect that all elections include an element of fraud (whether or not it was enough to throw the results) and to examine - with an open mind - all evidence that points in that direction.

[FreedomAngel82]

39. Yep

I believe they probably stole that one too. I think if they did count all of the votes and count them in fairness he would've won.

[dsc]

18. actually the odds would be fairly good

If humidity slows the counting process then the precincts with humidity problems would tend to be the last ones counted.

[autorank]

20. Why don't you produce some odds for us, or even some evidence.

Or even read the article and comment on it. The piece showed how there were identifiable problems with election integrity in Clermont before 2004, during 2004 and during the recount. The "humidity" was just an excuse.

If these people will call John Murtha a coward, they'll do about anything like: invade Iraq; despoil the environment at our great peril; neglect national disasters, i.e., Katrina; steal 2000 outright (no argument left there, i.e., "felon purge" in FL taking 50,000 blacks who should have voted (were not felons) OFF THE BALLOT.

The election stunk. Look at how well Hackett did in the first two rural counties listed below--which went 72% for the Republican 8 months previously.

Look how well he did in small precincts in Clermont. What do you think that's about?

The election stunk and Schmidt's attack on Murtha is a direct result of that election. People who deny election fraud on faith based or personal anecdotal excuses enable the election of the Jean Schmidt's of the world.

[tsuki]

6. Can you imagine how many ATM machines they would sell if

"humidity" affected them. I live in Florida, high humidity, and the ATM machine at my bank is Diebold. It never seems to have problems.

:tinfoilhat:

[dsc]

16. This is a different technology

this is optical scans which can be messed up by humidity as even the article points out. LA had a standard put forth due to that exact problem.

[autorank]

21. You're really defending Schmidt. How about a group: FOS!

"Friends of Schmidt"

Here's a response to your defense of her win:

[dsc]

22. I am defending common sense

against conspiracy theories. The simple fact is you were wrong about what type of machine it was. The article, written by someone with no love for Schmidt, says quite clearly the machine in question was an optical scan machine. That is nothing like an ATM machine. It isn't my fault you evidently didn't or can't read.

[autorank]

28. I wrote the article! Try reading it. I didn't say it was an ATM machine.

It was an Optical Scan machine. What is your problem. YOu have endless speculations you call common sense and you obviously didn't even look at the article summary to find out that

autorank, me, I wrote the article.

:rofl:

[dsc]

34. believe it or not some of us have lives

your missive in my inbox was not appreciated. As to the issue of the scan vs the atm the post you responded to was directed as was clear by looking at it to a post saying that ATMs aren't affected by humidity. Clearly you either didn't read the posts or ignored them after you did.

[autorank]

36. Give it up. Paul Hackett Should be in Congress, NOT Jean Schmidt

You really have it bad for Jean Schmidt. All this trouble anddisputation in behalf of her election.

She lost. You have no arguments, just quips. You have not read my article yet you disaprage it. You don't have to read it (at least before your start commenting) but please don't question things here without a review of it. It's like writing a movie review without ever seeing the movie.

You should go down thread and read 'freedomfries' nice summary.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2265888#2266949

I sent you one "missive" a couple of days ago and it was cordial and appropriate. I'd be glad to share it here to answer your innuendo that there was anything wrong with it. Someone else may have sent you one more recently that you didn't like. People get worked up by people who appologize for Jean Schmidt.

Give it up.

JEAN SCHMIDT SHOULD NOT BE IN CONGRESS. PAUL HACKETT SHOULD!

No amount of apologizing for her lousy election can make it different.

Sorry, that's just the way it is.

[dsc]

44. It was not a couple of days ago

which is quite usual in that you don't know the truth. You sent the message at 12:32am today as it clearly marked here.

Are you going to respond?
From: Land Shark
Date: Nov-21-05 12:32 AM
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... >

That is precisely 5 hours before my post which is less than 1/4 of one day. You are off by a factor of 8. Since you can't even keep a simple fact like that straight why should anyone believe anything that you say.

[autorank]

46. See it was from someone else. You say it's from me then prove otherwise.

Thank you. Wrong agin. Just to clarify. I am not Land Shark.

Hackett won.

[dsc]

50. I apologize for that

though then you sent me nothing. Incidently the message only linked your post so I assumed you had sent it. It hadn't linked the entire thread.

[dsc]

45. Incidently as to your article

Nowhere do you say that the last precincts were the ones Hackett did well in. You ask if that is the case but you don't say. Further you make several mistakes which make me wonder how familiar you are with mathematical principles. You mistake the slope of the line of best fit for the r2 value. Anyone who has studied any math wouldn't have made that error. It should be noted that a linear fit isn't the only possible model. Though in fairness I don't think that there is a good fit even with non linear functions. If you wish to try that let me know and I will direct you to an applet which performs those regressions.

One major problem you have is that he clearly did better in the rural areas of that district (I suspect due to a combination of his position on the war and the fact that rural areas have a disproportionate number of families of people serving). She won her home county which is hardly surprising. One possible explanation for her winning the highly populated areas is that they are contiguous and she is from that area. I am not from that part of Ohio so I don't know if that theory is correct but since you are presenting a circumstantial case it is your burden to show that there isn't an alternative explanation.

[autorank]

47. Oh, finally you read it.! There's a problem with the link on the graphs.

They are in the opposite locations. We'll fix that right away. The math is right if the graphs are reversed. I don't think TruthIsAll needs any help with his math;) But I'm glad after trashing me in your previous posts, you did finally read the article.

You just want her to be in congress so bad. You say "One possible explanation for her winning..." Maybe IF you were from Ohio, you'd have a different take.

Enough of this. Stop

[dsc]

49. I had actually read it before

evidently you still have problems reading my posts though. First I am from Ohio (I have recently moved to NC but was born and lived for over 30 years in NE Ohio). Hence the words I am not from that PART of Ohio. Secondly the problem isn't in the graphs but your text. You said something to the effect of the slope of the line is 0 showing no correlation between turnout and size of precinct. The slope of the line has nothing to do with correlation. To see that use the following five points. (1,2) (2,2) (3,2) (4,2) and (5,2). All five are on the line y=2 which has a zero slope. The correlation would be 1 here though since the line is a perfect fit.

As to the rest. I wish Hackett had won but unlike you I am unwilling to simply wish away logic. Hackett had a discernable pattern of doing very well in sparsly populated areas, as your own data showed. I will admit my reason for him having performed that way is indeed speculation. But even your data shows that he did perform that way. Thus the fact he continued that pattern in the county in question hardly is evidence of foul play. As someone who teaches math for a living, and has taught geometry on a few occassions, I can safely say that the only way indirect proofs such as yours are valid is if they show that only their explanation for the facts is correct. You haven't done that here. I notice you haven't even addressed any point I have raised other than to continue to call me names.

[autorank]

56. I'm tired of talking to you. It's useless. I will get back on the math

though.

[tsuki]

25. If banks used optical scanners, do you really think that this

problem would occur? I don't.

[dsc]

26. which is why banks don't use them

The fact is voting technology is way behind the times. We use old cards in many counties. Scan tron dates from the 60's or 70's. No bank would use such old technology.

[MelissaB]

3. Excellent work!

Thanks, auto! :hi:

[autorank]

29. Hii MelissaB. See this this link folks. Best Elections news thread ever.

A keeper:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=402066&mesg_id=402066

[tritsofme]

4. Republican wins in Republican district!

Someone call in the cavalry!

[Awsi Dooger]

11. Not only that

Show me any poll that had Hackett ahead. Pre-election poll, exit poll, I don't care.

Remember, on DU we go by polls, not trivia like actual vote totals. Sometimes we rely on pre-election polls and ignore exit polls, and on other occasions it's the exact opposite. I'm never sure how they know which one is proper for a given race or cycle but damn it's impressive how they swarm all over one and not the other. I guess it's like a dog who just knows where to pee.

The closest poll margin I ever saw was Hackett trailing by 5. And of course polls always decalre the actual result without chance of tiny error let alone a flop of victor. Admittedly there weren't many polls but none had Hackett ahead. But based on this thread he obviously won so I guess we cheated first to overturn the poll absolutes, and then they found humidity to cheat even better than we did. Granny, this polee-tics sure is complee-cated.

[autorank]

12. Out in force Just can't stand to think Bush or anyone stole it.

Blackwall a favorite of yours?  Just asking.

Don't tell me what I have to do.  Just read the article. I'm
sure you have not.  Criticizing my argumeents is fine but do
so based on a review of my arguments and analysis in the
article, not pot shots.  I don't say much about polls there,
it's empirically based.  Here is some actual data:

The Ohio 2nd District has been very, very Republican for 3
decades.  The last four elections were won by 70% majorities
by the Republican. 

That's what makes Hacketts achievement so remarkable.  We all
know that rural America is largely Republican. That is the
case in Ohio.  Now look at these actual results for the
election (all paper ballots, btw).  

FOUR COUNTIES IN OHIO 2ND DIST-SPECIAL ELECTION 2005
All counties have less than 100 people per sq. mile-rural.

               Repub.%
               Prior 
County	       Elections*  Hackett   Schmidt
ADAMS	         72%	    36%	      48%
BROWN	         72%	    36%	      44%
PIKE	         52%	    63%	      37%
SCIOTO	         56%	    63%	      35%

(*Corrected - 72% was District average; 63% Repubican win
average for 4 rural counties)

Hackett was a true phenomenon.  Given that the anti Bush, anti
war, refusing to gay bait Hackett did worse in two counties
known for serious election problems in 2004 (and still manned
by the same election staff) shoud raise serious questions. 
But don't confuse yourselves with the facts.  Wise cracks are
easier to counter.

You can trust Blackwell et al or you can trust the facts.

I hate to disappoint you but Jean Schmidt should not be
serving in Congress right now.

[wakeme2008]

5. Very good piece

All we have to do is CRACK ONE county for vote counting fraud, and maybe somebody will question why Kerry lost Ohio.

This same county is the same one on the recount that some ballots had white stickers over Kerry's position and a Bush vote. Add to that they did not randomly pick the 3% for recount but the SOE picked them.

[autorank]

7. Exactly. The Clermont County recount was a joke. There were many

problems with Clermont precinct registrations, problems believing the esponentional increases in multiple precincts.l.

There is always Warren County, part of the 2nd District. On election eve, the board of elections cleared the tabulation headquarters during the recount claiming that they had received a "terror alert" for their very location. The room was cleared of observers and the count continued. The next day the FBI categorically denied issuing any terror alert to Warren County or anyone else in the USA on election day.

The problem in Ohio is this: Gov-R; Attorney General-R; Secretary of State-R; Supreme Court-6 R's, 1 D; etc, etc. There is no way to bust anybody other than stating the obvious from easy to obtain evidence. The Republicans own the state.

It will happen somewhere soon. Anyone paying attention knows that 2004 was stolen!

:hi:

[wakeme2008]

10. Plus

From what I was reading BEFORE the election, the Dems were signing up new voters in Ohio. But it appears they sign up as a Dem but voted for Bush.. ya right..... :banghead:

[autorank]

14. That happens in a few key states-NM, FL.

What a joke. Some election data in Ohio was showing no increases for Democrats, some a great deal, it's all too strange. Ohio is just about 80% Diebold now. It's a lost cause unless somebody busts them and busts them hard.

[win_in_06]

8. Now America is paying the price for Ohio's election

[freedomfries]

9. kick & rec this thread

[autorank]

13. Great Username--it's all about winning in 2006. Ohio is a major problem.

Blackwell is without shame. The election reform issues out there in a recent special election were leading by 20% in the pre-election polls and lost by 20% on election day--that's a 40% spread. Why aren't the 'powers that be' out there smart enough to figure out that the state has become a laughing stock under Taft-Petro-Blackwell. Who would relocate a business there in the morass of corruption. I hope something out there happens. There are great election integrity activists but they need some business community support and an Ohio version of Fitzgerald.

[Roland99]

27. It was a nasty rainy day here just down I-71 in Louisville...no problems.

I voted at a church and the doors were pretty much open as the number of people coming in and out was pretty steady. We have optical scanning machines that scan penciled in circles. No problems with the machines.

[autorank]

30. There are real-world consequences to lousy elections. See Jean Schmidt

Here she is. Can you just imagine how the good people of Ohio's 2nd Congressional District feel about having this person as their representative. I think that she and that Ohio delegate she quoted have new lows to reach in their careers as flacks for the Republicans.

http://www.canofun.com/blog/videos/schmidtrepublicanstuntnov1805.wmv

Now, after seeing that, do you wonder why I have serious questions about electoin integrity in Schmidt vs. Hackett.

Were Paul Hackett in Congress today, no slandar would have been directed at Rep. John Murtha. Election integrity is our fundamental issue.

[upi402]

31. paper trail -yes!. investigate Diebold -yes!

[autorank]

43. YES! to you upi402. Investigate Diebold now!!! n/t

[femrap]

32. I live in the Cincy area....I emailed and called Hackett and

his manager, Woodruff, asking them to demand a Recount. I said that there was no reason to be considered 'sore losers' given that there were 'problems' in Clermont County...a notoriously bad BOE.

I received no response.

I found out later that Hackett preferred to go on vacation.

The public/voters cannot demand a recount....the candidate has to do that. Given the fact that Hackett had been such a 'fighter' during the campaign, I was not happy to see him CONCEDE so quickly.

Now that he is running for Senate, I can surmise his thinking at the time of his 'loss:' "Hey, look how well I did in such a conservative district! Why should I fool around with Congress.....I can be a big SENATOR and run against DeWine next year."

Hackett left me with a very bad taste in my mouth. I am going to work hard for Sherrod Brown.

Hackett cares about Hackett and what power and prestige he can attain. That is my take on him given what I saw in the Special Election. I don't think he cares about serving the people of Ohio.....if he did, he would have asked for a Recount. How else are we going to have a DEMOCRACY?

Send this thread to Hackett....I'd like to hear his answers to my questions...he nor his manager ever answered me or others who worked for him.

[autorank]

33. That's a very bad experience. This might the help a bit...

...since I can't buy you a :toast:

I raised this question the the esteemed Land Shark who actually sues for election integrity and is damn smart. He pointed out that the public has to be the ultimate guardians of the electoral process. Politicians have their own agendas, which may or may not include adherence to every important value at a given time if they have greater political interests.

Unfortunately, as you point out, we can't demand a recount. We can get nasty and really push for strong election integrity legislation.

As for not being called back, that's not good at all. I've lived in the state or district of some real pros at constituent services. You had a good question.

He actually didn't go on vacation, it was guard duty.

I'm not sure what his motivation was. I do know that about 8 people printed this article out and handed it to him personally.

Good luck in your campaign work!!!

[freedomfries]

35. a dry-weather analysis of the Clermont County humidity factor for dsc

Consider the facts:
1. On August 2, 2005 at 9:30 PM, with 88% of the votes counted, the Hacket-Schmidt race was too close to call 50%-50%. A recount was forecast.
2. At 9:30PM, only 99 of 199 precincts in Clermont County, Schmidt's home turf, remained to be tallied. All returns stopped for the next 100 minutes due to "dampened ballots" "slowing down" the scanners.
3. At 10:49 PM, after a 100-minute-long "humidity" shutdown, final tallies showed Schmidt ahead by 52% to 48% in the Congressional district, and 58% to 42% in Clermont County. There would be no recount.
4. Post-mortem statistical analysis of the 199 Clermont precincts by TruthIsAll show that the correlation between voter participation and Schmidt vs. Hacket vote choice is inversely proportional, i.e. voter participation rate in each precinct grows in proportion to Schmidt vote, while it decreases in proportion to Hacket vote.
5. All Clermont precincts with a Hacket majority are under 200 votes. Hacket won all 36 small Clermont precincts and lost all 54 largest ones, a statistical impossibility TIA demonstrated.
6. Comparision of the Clermont County BOE screenshots at 9:30 PM and 10:49 PM show that the margin of difference between the two candidates jumped from 11.29% to 19.70% for the 91 precincts tallied during the "humidity" shutdown.
7. The average precinct size also increased from 121 to 174 voters in the 91 precincts with "dampened ballots".
8. Alltogether the humidity vote count yielded Jean Schmidt an additional margin of 3111 votes over her opponent, just a little less than her total margin of "victory" of 3977 votes over Paul Hacket in the whole Congressional district.
Where is our Pat Fitzgerald for election integrity?

[EFerrari]

37. Boy, how surprising is this?

Thanks, autorank.

[autorank]

41. Thanks from sfexpat2000 is always a very high compliment:)

:yourock:

[EFerrari]

48. Back atcha.

:yourock:

[dsc]

55. From 8 assuming that every word of 1 through 7 were true

and I don't think that 5 is even possible let alone true, then the woman still would have won by 866 votes well within recount land but still a win.

[mod mom]

38. Thanks, Autorank for all your continued efforts

this is one positive note :

"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC recommends touch screen (DRE) machines not
be used until a reliable voter verifiable audit feature can be uniformly incorporated into these
systems and that in the event of a recount, the paper or other auditable record should be
considered the official record; and ..."

this from:

DNC Resolution in Support of Election Reform
November 19th, 2005
The following resolution will be considered by the DNC Resolutions Committee at its meeting on December 1, 2005, in conjunction with the meetings of the Democratic National Committee, December 1-3, 2005.
Submitted by: Donna L. Brazile, At Large/District of Columbia
Hartina Flournoy, At-Large/District of Columbia
Ben Johnson, At Large/District of Columbia
Resolution in Support of Election Reform
WHEREAS, in June, 2005, the Democratic National Committee completed its exhaustive
review of the presidential campaign in Ohio; and
WHEREAS, the resulting report, “Democracy at Risk: The 2004 Election in Ohio” documents
that more than one quarter of Ohio voters reported problems with their voting experience, and
African Americans were more than two times as likely as white voters to claim they encountered
problems with their voting experience; and
WHEREAS, this report confirms evidence of widespread voter confusion; voter suppression;
negligence and incompetence on the part of election officials; long lines at the polls; improper
requests for voter identification, particularly among young voters and African American voters;
the failure to properly process absentee ballots and the improper use of provisional ballots in
Ohio on Election Day 2004; and
WHEREAS, evaluations of the administrative processes and technology used by election
officials in Ohio revealed that inadequate and insecure voting systems were pervasive
throughout Ohio—unreliable punch card systems and insecure, unverifiable direct record
electronic (DRE) machines; and

continued at: http://blog.pdamerica.org/?p=426

[autorank]

42. mod mom, Thank you for posting the DNC's greater awareness.

This is progress. I am literally praying that they understand the urgency of this. It's too late, I fear, to get Ohio to do anything.

Something has to break with Diebold so that the Blackwell system out there is set aside for 2006. We're toast without that. I hope DNC understands that.

They need to be in court on this pronto.

We'll see how prayers do but I think a little campaigning is in order, maybe in Dec.

Excellent post and THANK YOU!

[texpatriot2004]

40. Hackett won. nm

[woldnewton]

51. As I continue to say, it's time to get out in the streets...

but it won't happen until a candidate and his party unite to call out this election fraud for what it is -- a travesty to democracy. Then the masses can get behind said candidate and party.

I remember reading a message that said Paul Hackett had fraud covered. I followed his lead and said nothing.

But we had Ohio last year... then the Hackett race... then the ballot initiatives 2 & 3, which were most surely rigged.

Until it's more than just state senator Theresa Fedor and the Ohio GP calling out these rigged elections, and calling out the media as well, we'll have to be content to have these things rigged, one after another, after another.. People here uniting behind the idea would be a start.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[JohnWxy]

53. Schmidt's Disgrace of Congress - she should give up her seat

After recovering from my initial shock and outrage over the incredible ejaculations of Rep. Schmidt, Republican, of Ohio, I felt compelled to express my disgust at this individual’s repugnant behavior. To insult and malign a decorated veteran of 37 years of courageous service to his country is to assault all veterans of all wars. Ms. Schmidt has seen fit to attack a man who has risked his life time and again for his country. I can ‘t imagine how it must feel to have sacrificed so much for your country and to then have to listen to such a despicable attack from one who has not committed herself to any public service, let alone put herself in the line of fire. Who has never put her life on the line for her country. This act by Schmidt was certainly one of the most obscene displays ever witnessed in the halls of Congress. Ms. Schmidt has brought great shame upon the institution of the Congress. I think the best thing for her to do, if she had any shred of decency, would be to apologize, sincerely, to the members of Congress, to all veterans and to the country and then to walk out of the building and give up her seat so a special election could be held to put someone of basic human decency in her place.

But since it’s obvious this person doesn’t harbor even a shred of decency within her she will stay, an excrescence on the face of Congress. Ms. Schmidt seems determined to demonstrate her unique talent for verbally defecating from her mouth for all to see and hear. I can only hope she will confine further offensive displays to her circle of friends in the Republican Party. They seem to take a peculiar delight in these repugnant, shameful acts of character assassination and calumny. Maybe we should all send Ms. Schmidt a bedpan so she has something to speak into when she feels moved to utter further excretia.

Where does the Republican Party come up with these abject beings? This Party seems to be a magnet for them. Do they go trolling for wretched souls in dark sectors known only to them? Or do they install neophytes in special boot camps of punk behavior where they teach them the techniques of mean-spirited politics inspired by misanthropy and despair.

Maybe they put ads in sniper magazines. They might look something like this: something like this:

The Republican Party seeks individuals for candidacy for public office. No intelligence, skills or aptitude required. Do you like to work with people, help people? Then go somewhere else. No interest in public service is considered a plus. Little to no work involved, once elected, lobbyist will advise or even write the laws for you and tell you what to vote for or against. Ample paid vacations (by lobbyists) year round. No campaigning skills required (although an aptitude for lying is a real plus), our party has extensive experience in fooling voters and subverting elections. (We campaigned in 2000 promising tax reductions for everyone and got millions of middle income suckers to vote for our candidates. Then, when we took the White House, we passed a tax law which gave most of the tax reductions to the very wealthiest in the country). Those technically minded can get positions with our election subversion unit at Diebold).

Extremely good compensation, basic Government salary plus commissions and tips (many corporations and wealthy cronies pay very well for our services, basically undermining smart public policy and trading the public welfare for private profits -- for those who pay.) Opportunity for rapid advancement. Positions at the highest levels of government may be opening up soon (unless we can GET that dirty rotten partisan, anti-capitalist, commie bastard, Fitzgerald). Paid training in techniques of disinformation, character assassination, misdirection and intimidation (our Neo-Con wing is loaded with the best in the business in these specialties). You learn how to work with network news people to help them to cover news events in a “balanced” way (advanced training in intimidation and subtle coercion by our Neo-con unit included).

Positions also available posing as journalists for assignment to the White House Press Corps, FOX News, ABC, etc. – You will file stories and reports frequently written by our own skilled (and Government paid!) propagandists and disinformation specialists. It’s fun! You’ll be treated like real journalists by television talk show hosts and interviewers.
For those going into television news positions you will be given news delivery training

We’ll even give you special terms and buzz-wards to use such as “partisan political action” e.g. “Well, on the - partisan politics front - the Democrats, again, raised questions about .. /How the President oversold the intelligence/ Tom Delay’s ethical troubles/ Karl Roves involvement in the Valerie Plame outing…/ Jack Abraham’s involvement in defrauding…/ Dick Cheney’s involvement in../” (take your pick) – Brian Williams – NBC News

As opposed to “Tom Delay was indicted today and characterized the Texas D.A as an extremist and the indictment as a partisan political action.”…(end of statement) – Brian Williams – NBC News.

Or, here’s a good one: “smell blood in the water”

“Well, Tom Delay has been indicted, and the Democrats smell blood in the water.” __ Gwen Awful – PBS Washington Week

Our party has demonstrated expertise in subverting elections, perverting the justice system and disrupting meaningful public debate of issues through EXTENSIVE use of techniques of disinformation, mis-direction, and when all else fails, use of, through repetition, the simple Big Lie. As a member of our party you must be able to develop a self-righteous tone of voice and demeanor while scrambling for cover: “Why, I am shocked, shocked I say, at these accusations leveled by the …/ District Attorney/ Special Prosecutor/ the Grand Jury/. This is obviously the statement of a fanatic. A fanatic, I tell you! I am shocked at such PARTISAN behavior!”

If you feel you have the qualifications or the character malformations to work for our organization, we want to talk to you.

Yes, where do they get these deviants or do they train them.

[freedomfries]

54. kick

great rant john wxy

[autorank]

57. JohnWxy, WELCOME TO DU!!! Why not post this on GD Politics.

It is eloquent and says it all!

:yourock: Please consider a post to GDP or where ever want to post it.