Kerry Won the Election by at least 1.7 Million Votes

[garybeck]

Apologies if this is already posted on DU

authenticity of article is disputed, but it's good reading....

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MEN412A.html

[RaulVB]

1. "dupe" (means already posted) (n/t)

[imenja]

2. there is no way a Republican wrote that article

I simply don't believe it. They think differently about the issue. These are the same sort of arguments that have floated around the Dem blogs, with no new information. It looks like a hoax to me.

[RaulVB]

3. Correct

This "individual" doesn't seem to be a real person. Looks more like some type of "Psy-ops", Republican sponsored.

[toymachines]

4. hope springs eternal

[Patriot Acts]

5. I knew it....

....I knew it all along. Bush is the only fraud!!

[Patriot Acts]

6. It's a shame

....that Kerry is not being more vocal. I remember him asking me for money all the time and telling me that this is (was) the most important election EVER (vote or die, as they say).

[LastKnight]

7. wasnt that P. Diddy? he was doin the vote or die stuff. nt

[Patriot Acts]

8. Yeah I do understand that...

I keep have watched the convention and all these Kerry speaches I have taped. I just can't belive he conceided so soon... and now he's very hard to track down. I smell something very fishy!!

[m.standridge]

9. Popular vote

I think this idea gets more air play, sometimes, than it happens to deserve this time, because the idea Kerry could have a win in the Electoral College only isn't pleasant to Democrats. It keeps the world simple to believe that a Democrat, when they win, wins both the Popular and the Electoral vote, not just Electoral
But look: there have been a couple of times when Democrats did relatively well in the Electoral College versus how close they got it in the Popular vote.
1960: JFK the first. Pretty close in the Popular, but there was little question he won big in the Electoral College. Nixon tried a recount, but it backfired and only added to JFK's Electoral College numbers.

1976: Carter beats Ford primarily in the Electoral College. His popular vote margin was much smaller than his Electoral.

1988: Dukakis didn't win, but he came damned sight closer to winning in the Electoral College, if he'd won, than in the Popular/Electoral combo.
Some have blamed Bentsen's "too early" concession speech, which, they aver, cost Dukakis Illinois and PA (where there were still long lines at the time of Bentsen's concession, due to judges allowing extra time for voting), western MI (where the polls hadn't closed yet) and thereby Michigan, and, as we've seen this year, Ohio (again, lines forcing polls to stay open longer), and New Mexico, which was close in 1988. I wouldn't be surprised to find it hurt in Nevada, (which also "looked funny" in 1984 Reagan got a quick 80,000 votes in NV in '84: see _World Almanac for 1987_ page 275 and page 291, under "Presidential Election Results, Nevada" for comparison. This listing continued from 1985 through 1991 in _World_.) Also, there was some talk that Maryland had been close enough to be recountable. Add all taht up, add it to Dukakis' 112 Electoral Votes. Now, go figure how he was fixing to win in the Popular vote as well as Electoral, if all w/Bentsen--or WHATEVER--had worked out.

Kerry had an Electoral College specialist working for his campaign this time: I saw the reference to him in the media coverage somewhere.
Historians DO say that it's relatively unlikely for a Dem to win Electoral only, because traditionally Dems carry the big cities due to new immigrant groups.
But Hispanics, this time-arounds new immigrants, are somewhat more rural so it's not impossible they could have helped Kerry more in the Electoral, perhaps enough to put him over, assuming there are enough actual numbers in Ohio to get the job done.

So, just don't be blown away about the Popular vote win not being there. There's also a simple "odds" thing, as in, well, sooner or later...over 200 years...

[m.standridge]

10. I'm guessing Bush's Popular vote is padded, though--

and somewhat smaller, maybe 1.9 million? Or maybe less than a million?

[jwmealy]

11. That looks roughly correct to me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=90686&mesg_id=109825

However, it still just doesn't compute to me that:

1. Republicans brought out three plus million MORE new voters (didn't vote in 2000 presidential election) in 2004 than the Dems did,

AND that

2. Significantly more 2000 Gore and Nader voters voted for Bush in 2004 than Bush 2000 voters voted for Kerry in 2004.

These two hypotheses would probably both have to be true in order for Bush to win in 2004 without massive fraud.

On point 1, the Dem base is classically known for having far more untapped resources in the form of voters who stay at home, and herculean efforts were made to get out the vote.

On point 2, I won't believe that unless an independent national poll proves it.

We really need some major polls to smoke out what just happened.

[jwmealy]

12. The Menfil article is speaking from ignorance to ignorance.

As some people have commented on this thread, the exit polls are not discrepant from the tabulated result to the tune of three million votes (let alone 5.7 million votes). So the supposed sophisticated insider is talking out of his or her *** when it is asserted, "The exit polls were not wrong", and that Kerry won by 1.7 million votes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=90686&mesg_id=109825

Not a chance in hell that Menfil is on the level.