The "bushes" don't let you see the OHIO trees

[RaulVB]

Bush 2000 : 2.351.209 = 50.00 %
Bush 2004 : 2.796.147 = 51.01 %

Gore 2000 : 2.186.190 = 46.50 %
Kerry 2004 : 2.659.664 = 48.52 %

So, in other words WHAT "REALLY" HAPPENED is that Bush "did better" in 2004 but Kerry outperformed Bush 2:1 in new voters. Then actually Kerry needed to beat Bush 3:1 on the new voter mass in order to "win"...

But Bush's "numbers" are easily "explained" because "hardcore Evangelicals" showed up to vote!

Give me a break people.

[fertilizeonarbusto]

1. I hear ya

Folks, the more I see the hard numbers-as in the excellent article in the lobby today-the more I see the math just does not work, unless there was a major miracle. They stole it. I just wish the hard evidence (as opposed to the very fishy numbers) would come out.

[googly]

2. I have said it many times, unless one of the perpetrator of fraud

comes forward, it will be impossible to prove. The machines won't talk, and I am certain they must have replaced the crooked software/hardware by legitimate software/hardware. And even paper copies of each vote is not foolproof because they can alter/substitute pieces of paper.

Why am I getting the nauseous feeling Kerry will suffer the same fate as Gore, win the election but never get to be president.

[sabra]

3. For me they have talked...

See this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x104513

[googly]

12. I checked that thread, and I think we are talking of two different things

In that thread there are those misdirected votes to Bush which has to be one of two things. Either honest computer glitch or intentional fraud.
But there is no mention of any technician/programmer confessing to it.

In a court of law mere glitches will not cause the election to be overturned. We will need a witness willing to testify that intentional fraud was perpetrated. I don't believe anyone has come forward as yet.

[RaulVB]

4. BTW...

As Athens numbers are included, "Bush's victory" will be of about 118.000 votes over Kerry.

As I posted elsewhere, exactly THE SAME NUMBER of Nader's Ohio votes in 2000!

Numerically impossible but fits the "republican sense of humor"...

[Old and In the Way]

7. The only "hard evidence" will be if Kerry conducts a major

re-canvassing of the voters. A high visibility campaign to have the voters sign affidavits attesting to their vote is the only thing I will believe at this point. A recount using the cooked data will only reinforce the same results gathered 11/2. If they cooked the vote then....why wouldn't they be smart enough to get the data fixed to support the fraWd?

Only way I see it is for Kerry to start a campaign to validate the vote through signed affidavits. Get our organization to repoll the voters. Every Republican who also voted for Kerry is more than welcome to have their vote counted too.

Secret ballots + Republican controlled machines + Republican controlled process = another stolen election.

[trudyco]

13. That's my thinking, too, need to have a revote canvass

At least start with a suspicious precinct. One with low dem turnout or BUsh getting all of the new vote. It would be nice to have the GOTV'ers involved because they probably have a list of people to contact. This should be done simultaneously with the recount, in case the recount doesn't point to the smoking gun. I wonder if it could be used to do an investigation of ballots (if the precinct targetted had paper ballots). Would be interesting to see the fingerprints. Also, the original poll books with signatures. And the voter registration lists should be turned over.

The rally seemed like a good time to do this (revote canvass). My only concern would be if people didn't want to tell who they voted for - my husband is like that.

trudyco

[Old and In the Way]

14. "people didn't want to tell who they voted for"

The Republicans count on that attitude, I think.

Back in the "old days", I think a secret ballot made sense. But back then, you had real paper to count.

Now, secret ballots can be used as a weapon against the majority's preference.

I am convinced that the recount won't change things much. I want an entirely sperate dataset that we (Democrats) control. But to make it bullet-proof, people need to be willing to attest to their vote.

Secret ballots + Republican vote machines + Republicans controlling the count/recount process = Republicans win

[Hobbes199]

5. softcore evangelicals

the ones who've never cared to vote up until now.

[RaulVB]

6. "Hardcore believers"

That's the explanation because the gay marriage initiative "put them on the march..."

A "miracle", you know.

[keepthemhonest]

8. do you know of anyone who has looked at the

amount of new voters going for BUsh ,my Bother did some
calculations on it

and Bush got over 100% of new voters in some counties

[RaulVB]

9. So just for fun...

I went to check the Ohio's numbers in their website seconds ago and, surprise, surprise...

The "final" Bush's victory margin matches the total of Nader's votes in the 2000 election.

Lots of progressives out there that just "love" W

[Helga Scow Stern]

10. No kidding! To the vote?

[RaulVB]

11. 928 votes gap...

They don't want to look "suspicious", you know.