Assume the election fraud is right and the machines switched ALOT of votes

[blm]

According to the exit polling that would be a 5 million vote switch, where you ADD 5m to Kerry's total and subtract 5m from BushInc

That means that Kerry received the most votes in the history of American elections.

He must have done something right while the DNC was doing something HORRIBLY WRONG with their decision - sometime between 2001 and 2004 - not to work aggressively to secure the machines and protect the votes of Democrats all over the country, and especially in swing states.

Funny, how Kerry is the one faulted the most - and for what? Trusting Terry MacAuliffe was doing his job as head of the DNC for 4 years and that the Dem infrastructure was working.

I'd really like to know what Terry Mac knew and when he knew it and why he chose to not counter the GOP aggressive attack on Democratic voters.

What was he focusing on that kept him so busy for four years that he didn't notice what the GOPs were doing SYSTEMATICALLY?

[ray of light]

1. Sloppyness.

[flpoljunkie]

2. Why McAuliffe did not get it is a mystery to me, especially the software.

When you know that votes can be flipped and leave no trace, why did they choose to do absolutely nothing about it--let alone try to educate the American people to the potential stealing of their votes in 2004.

I simply do not understand it. And now, they are not doing enough, it seems to protect the sanctity of the vote in November.

[ShortnFiery]

3. That's because some powerful Democrats are in on "the scam" ? n/t

[skipos]

5. Yeah, repubs loan us Diebold codes for our dem primaries

and then we give them back for the general elections. Give me a break.

The problem is that MOST PEOPLE are pretty confident that their vote is counted.

[blm]

7. Or...they just really don't believe it is more likely.

And they get mad at the "left" who do, as if it embarasses them. I think they are the ones overly respectful of the corporate media and do not want to attract criticism from them.

[blm]

4. I think Dean IS working to figure it all out and that could also be one of

the reasons that so many of the establishment Dems are trying to undermine him as chairman. mf is posting all the time about the little stories that really are beginning to form a larger story here.

Could be that if Dean finally gets a handle on it, it will prove embarassing for the PREVIOUS officeholders so loyal to Clinton.

Maybe THAT is why those articles came out so quickly on left sites that were critical of Kennedy's article.

[flpoljunkie]

8. Let's hope Dean gets it done, but he needs help from the Dem leadership.

[blm]

9. That's why the bottom line for me is that I will support the Dem who works

to expose machine fraud and works WITH the DNC to secure the machines BEFORE the election.

[MrModerate]

6. Frankly, it frustrates me to hear people say . . .

That Kerry ran a terrible campaign.

In my opinion, it seems that -- from a purely political execution standpoint -- it was more effective than President Gore's had been, with fewer missteps. Sure, the Swiftboating response was laggard (I think Kerry's people couldn't believe, at least for the first few days, that anyone would give those slimy shits the time of day), and there were other imperfections that prevented what we needed to win: a landslide that would overwhelm the 'Licans' voter fraud initiatives.

Things were entirely different from the previous time a Bush ran for a second term, not the least of which was a ruthless grip on the levers of power far too down and dirty for Bush I, and which flogged the wingnut and 'Lican bases to a frenzy.

I saw Kerry in person and on TV several times during the campaign, and while I started out as an anyone-but-Bush supporter, by November, I really wanted to see the guy in the White House.

Now, of course, everything is different again, and I'm still looking for a Dem I can embrace wholeheartedly in '08.

[chimpymustgo]

14. I pretty much agree with you MrModerate. And Kerry DID rack up the votes

for a DECISIVE win.

My problems with his campaign: the Swiftboat response...not using John Edwards more...and the windsurfing.

But in all reality, Kerry ran a much better campaign than *, fought the MSM valiantly, and millions of Americans thought he's be a good President - certainly better the Evil-doer-in-chief.

But my main problem with the Kerry campaign was not putting up any kind of fight, not raising any kind of doubt about the election that was stolen from him. Why can't the Democrats get their heads out of their *sses on this issue? This is what it is ALL about.

[MrModerate]

16. Even today, otherwise reasonable people . . .

Aren't convinced Ohio was formally stolen (as opposed to votes being suppressed by nearly-legal means, using techniques that surface in every election) -- and this after nearly two years of research and discussion across the entire datasphere (Internet, print, electronic media, and water cooler).

I don't think Kerry could have protested the results without a disastrous backlash. However -- since that time, Dems have been WAAAY too shy in confronting the growing 'Lican stranglehold on the electoral machinery, and if we don't get a grip on the issue soon, we'll never win another election (and soon King George won't even bother to hold 'em).

I'm terribly frustrated that Dems can so easily be painted as too timid to govern, even when their ideas are sound and their hearts are in the right place.

[chimpymustgo]

17. But they ARE timid. And voters recognize the smell.

I wonder if any candidate could garner enough votes to overcome the fraud...or will the Rethugs just take whatever they need (as they have in the past several elections).

[karynnj]

19. The windsurfing really wasn't his fault

He windsurfed ONE day during the Republican convention. In our sports crazy culture, Kerry was taking a few hours doing something physically and mentally demanding. A media that showed Georgie carries brush endlessly and spent hours praising his biking, had no reason to have a problem with Kerry. Remember they showed Clinton jogging and Bush 1 on his boat and playing golf. Other than Clinton getting flack when a jog SUPPOSEDLY ended at a fast food restaurant, I can't think of any politician being mocked for being athletic. (Kerry played 4 sports in college, is still a good cyclist and windsurfs - sure beats a cheerleader who gathers brush.)

At any rate, even if Kerry would have had the foresight not to engage in windsurfing, it wouldn't have mattered. The commercial didn't use real footage, it was a computer design simulation. They had a John Kerry windsurfing picture - taken a few years before - and they moved it around on a water background in time to a waltz. How the hell is that Kerry's fault?

[Norquist Nemesis]

10. I understand what you're getting at

but I can't fault McAullife and the DNC for the machines. Each county elections board makes the decisions on how the money is spent for voting (machines, ballots, etc.), don't they? And if that is the case, how does the DNC have influence in Republican voting districts? :shrug:

Unless I'm mistaken, they took several tacts and spread them around in the most effective manner so as to be under the radar. In Democratic districts, purge the voter registrations, suppress by whatever means including inoperable and inadequate quantities of voting means. When it came to the e-voting/machines, they essentially shaved votes away from Kerry toward Bush just enough that it wasn't obvious--in Republican districts. Had that happened in strongly Democratic districts, red alarms would be sounding. But in the Republican districts, it was simply accepted without question.

They only needed 51% toward Bush in the Con districts that were close. But it was Republican controlled (and likely even Republican only memberships) in those counties. The DNC would not have any influence.

[blm]

11. The Dems on election boards all over the country need to be convened to

educate them about what all is occurring under their noses - within the system and outside the law.

They should all get thorough training to make sure the machines' programs are secured BEFORE the voting.

That is something the DNC can do in their role. And like it or not, Dem infrastructure DOES fall on DNC's shoulders.

[glitch]

12. second this. the dnc needs to do for election reform what Gore is doing

for climate crisis: train 1000 people to go out and educate the infrastructure.
a movie would be nice too.

[blm]

15. I'm right with you there on that score.

.

[Norquist Nemesis]

13. I agree 100% that Dems s/b doing that

I'm just taking, for example, here in DuPage County. As far as I'm aware, there is no Dem representation on that board. Hell, we're lucky if we even have a Democrat to vote for on the ballot! There are no Democrats with any authority on the Board.

We can banter about how it got to be that way, and point fingers back at McAullife, DNC, etc. Frankly, I think it should be legislatively mandated that an equal number of Democrats and Republicans should be on the County Board of Elections, and the Chair be voted on as well.

All I'm saying is that the DNC/McAullife did not have a seat at the table for Republican majority districts and definitely not for solidly Republican districts for the 2004 election. What the DNC can and should do in terms of educating, etc. as you are saying I completely agree with. :)

[madfloridian]

18. I posted about this in April. Found it. More from the DNC website.

Here is what I posted, which got ignored, from Dean's hour long interview at The American Prospect breakfast that month. Pretty good statements from Dean, I think.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/75

He talks about Diebold machines and makes his views clear. He says they can not be trusted.

Also there have been meeting and conferences on this at the DNC. The media has not covered them much. Also they have not put out a lot of statements as to who was there, etc...but I guess it would not be hard to find out.

Here is the DNC page with the search term "machines." Quite a bit of stuff there.

http://www.democrats.org/cgi-bin/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=1&search=machines&x=22&y=3

I guess the reason my post dropped so quickly was that Dean believes Optical Scans are safe. That gets an argument here, almost attacks. I happen to feel pretty secure when we vote that way, though. Last time hubby monitored numbers voting as the optical machines counted, kept track of Democrats at our precinct. And we knew there was a paper record.

[blm]

20. I remember it - it keeps me hoping....

I know the Op scan thing is an obstacle, but y'know, at least he is looking INTO it more and will keep an open mind about it. I think alot of pols are still in the early stages of learning about this stuff.