Define "decent" - you are living in a fantasy world, if you think that all 5 pages of this thread have "decent" posts in them, LOL. And you will be kicking yourself for not listening to me more closely when you are banned from this place.
Gee thanks Manny. There has been some intellectual discussion on this thread, and that is all you can ask for. Now, can we get back to the subject of the numerous allegations of voter fraud of the 2004 election?
It hasn't been 5 pages of intellectual discussion and several people have already pointed out to you that this article is not the best in presenting your argument. What else is there to discuss, vik?
I had one whole post with numerous links with documentation and valid research. Well, if that's the case and the moderators feel that way also, then lock the thread.
Lets see, slick: You title the tread The Biggest Story of Our Lives You ignore the relatively civil refutes of the article you posted You ignore Langals post which he referenced several times, and instead post a data dump of similar articles You accuse people of 'remaining ignorant' In all...i'd say you were let off easy in this thread! If you want to discuss...you should discuss. Tell people why you disagree with the points they raise rather than bombarding them with more hyperbole. No need to be so combative. So..by all means...post more in here....but also read the posts that are made in response to yours.
slickvic - I think people are just sick and tired of this topic. That may explain some of the animosity towards you. They may think that you brought this topic back up just for trolling purposes. When you consider that your initial post was a blog from Jim Lampley of all people - well then, you just have to prepare to get flamed a little. Politics has a tendency to bring out the worst in us - which is a little strange actually. I think that most of the people who post here, at the very least, care on some level about society - at least enough to formulate and express opinions - which is better than the apathy exhibited by much of the population. You've obviously done your share of research on this subject and for that I commend you - even though I still disagree with you. Two intelligent, informed, good-intentioned people can formulate vastly differing opinions on political issues. Different people just tend to viiew the world in different ways.
I agree with all of your points. I commend you as well, you are obviously quite knowledgable about this subject as well. I agree people are sick and tired of this topic on the Clutch BBS. I also think that it should not be ignored and tossed off to the side by the general public, and unfortunately it seems that it has.
fine then go back and look at voter fraud in almost every single election for the past 10 elections and tell me if you think this is a new issue or something isolated to george bush.
There is a great story in this in Columbus's newspaper today (www.dispatch.com) problem is the Dispatch is a pay sight and I don't feel right in copying the entire document. Anyways teh precing by precint voting data was just realeased and basically the voting came down to this: 1. Voting in cities increased 56% in Ohio (all compared to 2000 elections). The Dems went from a 53%-43% victory in 2000 to a 56%-44% lead in 2004 in cities. 2. Voting in villages increased 23.5% and Bush went from a 55%-41% victory in 2000 to a 58%-42% victory in 2004. 3. Voting in townships increased 24.5%. Lead stayed the same it was 59%-37% for Bush in 2000 and 61%-39% in 2004. 4. Statewide turnout was 71.8%. 5. Of teh 89 precints that grew by 500 voters, Bush won 74 of 89. 6. Of the 1959 Precints in which 80% of teh registered voters cast ballots, Bush won 1544. 7. Of teh 1,740 predominant Kerry Kerry precints (those in which Kerry got 70% of the vote) the voter turnout was 57.7%. In the predominant Bush districts turnout was 78%. Here is the background of the story about campaign planning - Jenniger Palmieri (Democrats campaign communication director in Ohio) was loking at demographics from Ohio's largest 6 cities and saw Kerry wih a 356k vote advantage (121k more than Gore in 2000) and assumed it would hold in other areas. Her exact quote is "We thought the margin would hold up, because Bush can't lose someplace like Frankin County by that many votes (almost 50k) and still win Ohio." Bill Paduchik (Bush's Ohio campaign Mgr) was looking at a different set of numbers. (These were teh numbers I referred to on election day before the exit polls were announced) These were fed in by Republican spottewrs at elections boards. They were always 100k ahead of the exit poll numbers (it does not say how/why). They showed Bush with a narrow but clear lead. Paduchik promised to Karl Rove and W that we would win Ohio when they made an unusual election day appearance on election day in Columbus, despite what was being broadcast on the networks. Here's the bottom line - Even as the glowing numbers went to the board in Kerry's Columbus HQ, staffers heard about dubious exit polls and a massive turnout in rural areas. Kerry's team (only at that point) dragged out a 2nd dry-erase board and started putting up results from more rural counties. It (not figuring in the massive growth of rural counties) was perhaps teh most fundamental miscalculation of teh presidential campaign. "Who knew they had room to grow?" said Palmieri. Finally on election day (and 2 days prior which was teh 72-hour campaign) - Republican party planned to 350k calls to likley Bush voters, at day's end they made 450k calls. Also the early exity poll numbers more heavily weighted city numbers than other areas. This is why it showed Kerry winning.
That's an interesting take on it. Could the exit polling methodology have underestimated the rural/township turnout nationwide as well? That may explain the discrepancy. The percentage of people living in non-urban areas has been increasing. Maybe the exit poll methodology did not take this into account.
