Why Do You Believe that the 2004 Presidential Election Was Stolen?

[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


If you believe that election fraud determined the results of the 2004 election, what argument do you find the most convincing (And if you don’t believe this, see the last choice in this poll).

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

1. All of the above! (minus the last choice)

not one smoking gun, but all these things together make a case for Election fraud

[Katidid]

3. Ditto, Ditto .... n/t

[Raster]

6. Not one smoking guy but many. 2004 was stolen using a multitude of ways

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

7. it is more than one

sorry if that didnt come across in my post...

[Raster]

9. it came across LOUD AND CLEAR. 2000 was their dress rehearsal.

In 2004 they opened the bag of tricks and tried a bit of everything. That was and is the problem with trying to detect fraud with 2004. There were many methods used. In certain areas it was voter purges. In other areas it was multiple methods of voter supression. Other places it was the machines. Other areas it was the tabulators. And then you have Ohio, where every dirty electoral trick on record was used.

[Raster]

10. And then the master stroke. In areas where * was already forecast to win,

they used computer programs to remove votes from Kerry and move them to *. That way they could avoid that nasty "popular vote" issue. I mean no one would think to examine those totals, now would they?

[wli]

11. same here n/t

[sallyseven]

12. Next election check with Tim Russett

He knows which state is being compromised. Remember 2002 Fla, Fal, Fal and 2004 it was Ohio, Ohio, Ohio. Who told him???????

[Amaryllis]

24. And another ditto. they hit it on all fronts. They got the most votes

with tabulator manipulation, but they hit it everywhere they could.

[Vincardog]

2. EVery one except the last nt

[Ediacara]

4. Multiple reasons

Well, just two:

1) electronic voting with no recount ability or paper trail.
2) tremendous (not just Ohio, but also NM, NV, IA, VA, possibly also CO, AR, and FL) discrepancies between official and exit poll results.

[kansasblue]

5. I don't see one that really reflects the kind of analysis that TIA

and Free-press.org have done. The analysis that shows unusually trends and swings to Bush only in areas where special electronic vendors were used. Also the unusual voting patterns in battle ground states versus non battle ground states.

[Time for change]

13. With regard to swing states

Item #2 makes the point that electronic vote switching was much more common in swing states than in non-swing states.

Item #3 makes the point that the exit poll discrepancies were generally greater in swing states than in non-swing states.

With regard specifically to electronic voting, I don't believe that there is any analysis that makes the case that there were unusual trends to Bush where electronic voting was used. Analysis of the exit polls shows that the greatest discrepancies between exit polls and official results occurred where punch card machines or mechanical voting was used. Maryland and Georgia are completely electronic, yet the exit poll discrepancies in these states wasn't outside the margin of error.

But central tabulators at the county level are used to add up the precinct votes in almost all counties, and that may be where a lot of the fraud occurred.

[babsbunny]

8. Because I live in Columbus, Ohio

and I am reading the book, "Did George W. Bush Steal America's 2004 Election" by Bob Fitrakis.

[Bill Bored]

14. Polls are down at the moment

I was going to write something sarcastic about the exit polls, but...

Actually, I think it was so easy to steal that those who knew how simply couldn't resist. It's just human nature.

Because of Republican ties to e-voting machine Cos. and others who count votes in secret such as Triad in Ohio and the whole Warren County Board of Elections, they were the first to figure out how to do it. They also suppressed the Black vote and other ethnic votes which unfortunately predictably vote mostly Democratic. Republicans are harder to get a fix on and perhaps the Dems have enough scruples not to target them in this way. Many Democrats were just sitting ducks though.

Also, I really think a lot of Dems were just too arrogant to believe that this could happen to them. They just don't get it.

[Time for change]

15. I don't think it was that easy

I think that the Republicans worked very hard to get to this point. This isn't just a low hanging fruit that they picked.

This is the most ruthless Administration in the history of our country IMO. They're completely immoral and would do anything to gain and hold power. I don't think that that can honestly be said about other Administrations that we've had -- even Nixon's.

[Bill Bored]

21. They did work hard, but now it's easy.

Look how hard it was in 2000 compared to 2004. They didn't even need SCOTUS this time, and the only state in play with a lot of "chads" was Ohio.

Look at the margin in FL this time compared to 2000. And look at that popular vote. And remember Gore would have won FL in 2000 by a "landslide" if all those overvotes had been counted.

And this time, they had the worst President in history. A known quantity and complete moron. An arrogant evil moron.

Imagine if they had a regular country club Republican who didn't actually piss everyone off he came in contact with and could actually speak the English language! The Dems would not stand a chance.

It will be even easier next time because Ohio will be mostly DREs.

Unless we get paper, auditing and recounts, we can't stop them.

They will win every hard fought election by about 3% or so no matter what the Dems do, and they'll have a cover story to explain exactly why each time, despite all evidence to the contrary. And the statisticians and poli sci guys will fall for it until they too realize how easy it is to steal these things, although their training will keep them from jumping to that conclusion. The scatterplots will correlate with the previous elections every time because they all will have been stolen!

And look how easy it is to discredit the exit polls. A little sampling bias here, a little differential non-response there, and they're useless!

The better way is to reveal just how easy it is to steal these elections and hope that enough changes can be made to make it a lot harder. but without that realization, nothing can change, IMO.

[Time for change]

22. I think we agree on the basic bottom line points

The Republicans, with their proprietary computers and software programs, now have the capability of electronically changing millions of votes in an election. They have strong motiviation to do so, and they have no moral qualms about doing so. Precisely how easy it is for them to do this is not the most important question, because they'll do it whether it's easy or not.

We also agree that the system needs to be fixed.

In addition, I feel that it's very important to identify to the extent we can HOW this election was stolen, and document and disseminate all the good solid evidence that we can find. I believe that this is critically important because unless the US public believes that we have had a stolen election, they will probably be too apathetic to strongly support meaningful election reform.

I think you agree with that too, so I think that any areas of disagreement we have on these points are minor by comparison.

[Cocoa]

16. I don't believe it was stolen

I'm with John Conyers

[Time for change]

17. I don't understand this post

Are you saying that Conyers doesn't think the election was stolen?

And why don't you think so?

[Cocoa]

18. because he's consistently said it

he's said throughout his efforts that he supports the people's right to believe whatever they believe, and to prove whatever they want to prove, but that that is not what he himself is doing. He's not trying to prove the election was stolen, he's trying to IMPROVE the process. FIX the screamingly obvious flaws.

[Time for change]

19. The fact he says that he's not trying to prove the election was stolen

is a very long way from meaning that he doesn't believe that it was stolen.

In the first place, he has to say that. That's just something you have to say if you're a mainstream politician in this country today. I have a tremendous amount of respect for him, but I have to say that I don't believe him for a minute when he says that.

And even if it was true that he's not trying to prove that it was stolen, that wouldn't mean that he didn't believe that it was.


I for one believe that it was stolen, and that it's important to find a way to expose that. I believe that's important because I believe that people in this country are too apathetic to demand election reform unless they believe that elections are actually being stolen.

[FogerRox]

20. I have picked every winner since my 1st vote in 1976

An incumbant gets his may june approval rating in NOv--

May - June '04

BUSH 44%

SO
Kerry would get- say --- 55%

[Time for change]

23. I accidentally voted for the wrong choice

I voted for number 6 (Voter suppression in Ohio), but I meant to vote for # 5 (fraudulent recount). I can't believe that Blackwell and his minions would go to such extreme length and break so many laws to prevent a full recount in Ohio unless they had a pretty good idea that a recount would turn something up.