The DUMBEST Argument About Fraud...

[smartvoter]

... also happens to be the most common. For weeks we heard there was no fraud and, now that the evidence is too much to ignore, we hear:

"There may have been fraud, but not enough to flip the election."

The level of fraud is unknowable at this stage. In fact, overwhelming statistical evidence suggests that it was more than enough to flip it, if you get down to it.

To those who CHOOSE to believe that there wasn't enough fraud to make the difference in this election, recognize your position for what it is -- an opinion with no factual basis. Until you have numbers or tangible evidence to back it up, your arguments will fall on deaf ears.

[libertypirate]

1. here here!

[JaneDoughnut]

2. OK, I'll take my spanking

Though at least subconsciously, the reason I've repeatedly said the focus is not on overturning the election, is because I don't want to be a tin-foil hatter. I want to be careful to frame this as a problem with our election system and try to get reforms in place rather than just run around screaming KERRY WON, KERRY WON! I'll save that for after he wins. ;)

[smartvoter]

67. I agree with this approach. Just can't...

.. say anything about not being enough. It's an unknown. I think that what we can say is there is evidence of fraud emerging and numerous academic studies suggest that there could have been enough to tip the election, but we don't know without a thorough investigation. We can add to that, now, that the behavior of operatives in Ohio is not helping the case against fraud...

[glitch]

3. Can we tack this thread to the top of the forum? It's so basic, and so

ignored. Thanks for posting.

[On the Road]

4. Absolutely True

and why it's wiser to emphasize the known irregularities that claiming certainty about the election being stolen. There's certainly enough evidence to call for an investigation, and it's much easier to gain support for that position.

[txindy]

5. That argument never fails to crack me up

"There may have been fraud, but not enough to flip the election."

Essentially, what they're saying is that a felony may have been committed, but it didn't change the results, so no harm, no foul. Riiiight. :eyes:

Let them argue amongst themselves. Those connected to the felony will have lots of time to mutter to themselves in prison.

[Lone Pawn]

No, what we're saying is

it wasn't enough to flip the election, so we should stop saying "FRAUD" and "THEY STOLE THE ELECTION AGAIN!" which makes us look insane, and instead talk about election reform and voter irregularities that need fixed so every American can exercize their right to vote without undue trouble.

[txindy]

17. You worry about that, then

That's the least of it.

[Lone Pawn]

22. But it's the most of it

that we have any actual evidence for. The rest is speculation and dot-connecting that, while evidence enough for most of us (and indeed anyone who's been paying close attention the last four years) won't convince anyone who doesn't already believe it.

[txindy]

24. You believe what you like

The answers will come soon enough.

[Lone Pawn]

30. I'll believe what I like indeed,

and so will all of America. And I'm afraid that while what I believe is meaningless, what 50.1% of America believes means everything.

[pointsoflight]

41. And how will you get election reform?

After all, the companies that run the elections, the republicans in control of the white house and both chambers of congress, and mainstream media have all be telling us that the election went very smoothly. How will you possibly achieve any kind of significant change in the way elections are run if the widespread belief is that the current system works?

[Lone Pawn]

51. But I believe there was fraud.

I'm not saying there wasn't. What I am saying is that I am a member of the group the poster calls dumb. I do not believe we have any proof that the election was stolen, and we are actually hurting the election reform case by saying so.

If we keep this up, America will believe "all the people who want election reform are tin-foil-hat conspiracy theorists who also believe that John Kerry actually won--they don't actually care about reform, they're just unable to deal with defeat."

[tridim]

82. No, it's insane to ignore reality

and we're the only ones who aren't ignoring reality. I don't give a rat's ass if the Bushbots say I'm nuts. Logic is apparently not a conservative value.. That's their problem, not mine.

[roseBudd]

18. And a corked bat does not change a players stats RIGHT!

[SmokingJacket]

You're right --

if there's a little, there could be a lot.

If there's a lot... no one knows what could happen. Uncharted waters.

[cyberpj]

6. "Not enough" ---- another take

I like using this analogy -

If I was attacked and stabbed, how would I feel if the judge let my attacker go because he only stabbed me once or twice... not enough to kill me?

[Lone Pawn]

13. If I had charged him with first-degree murder,

he would get off. Charge him with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and then he would go to jail--for that. Look, your analogy actually works in our favor.

[cyberpj]

20. Aha - so we continue to say investigating fraud -

instead of stolen election, 'eh?

Whatever it takes to keep the pressure on!

[Lone Pawn]

32. I've got no problem with that.

I seriously do believe that there were severe problems this year. We just don't have proof yet. People will take us more seriously if we sound just a bit less alarmist, I think. And honestly, the more people who believe us, the more research that will be done, and the more people that will take us seriously. The time will come for alarmism, I'm sure. But we need to get the ball rolling first.

[hootinholler]

47. Or how about the SEC....

There weren't enough shares bought through insider trading...

Or It was only a few thousand embezzeled...

The list can go on and on...

-Hoot

[politicaholic]

7. Hold on...Ukrain gets a new election as result of suspected fraud!

What about us? Oh, yeah, that's right, we're better than they are.

I almost forgot.

[Lone Pawn]

8. So if you believe that there were irregularities,

but also think that much of the "statistical evidence" is either tweaked or realize that "margin of error" in no way covers systematic error, than you're dumb? Okay. Sure.

Look, for those who CHOOSE to believe that there was enough fraud to make the difference in this election, recognize your opinion for what it is -- an opinion with no factual basis, but instead a thousand cherry-picked instances and half-true statistics. Until you have actual evidence, your arguments will fall on deaf ears, and you'll just make us look insane.

Okay now. Let's see it from the perspective of All Non-DU Members.

Which set is easier for the public to swallow?

SET A: ALL MUST BE ACCEPTED (SOME WILL BE EASIER TO ACCEPT THAN OTHERS)
1. Bush stole Ohio.
2. John Kerry, who spent the last two years of his life working 12 hours a day to become president, gave up, because he really doesn't care.
3. John Edwards, whose political career went from being DNC Wonderkind to being on the verge of 'over,' didn't say anything, because he's positioning himself for '08 and didn't want to sound like a nut.
4. MoveOn, which poured millions of dollars into the greatest grassroots fundraising-advertising machine ever created, is actually a bunch of weak whores who don't care.
5. America Coming Together, which pioneered innovative use of the internet, doesn't care.
6. Al Franken, who wrote a NYT #1 bestselling book on lies and fraud, and who for three hours a day rants gloriously about lies and fraud, doesn't want to jump on what would be the biggest fraud of the century.
7. Michael Moore, who wrote two NYT #1 bestselling books on lies and fraud, and who made the most successful documentary of all time talking about lies and fraud, doesn't know or doesn't care about the biggest fraud of the century.
8. The MSM, which is nothing but a pack of whores looking for a cheap story, feels like passing up on all this evidence.
9. Keith Olbermann, who looked into it, was forced away from it by MSM Evil Overlords, despite his denials.
10. Rolling Stone has a conservative bias, since it called theories of conspiracies found only on the internet "internet conspiracy theories," despite ample evidence that the editors are actually flaming lefties.
11. Despite more national newspapers endorsing Kerry than Bush this year--and despite more Ohio newspapers endorsing Kerry than Bush this year--not a single national newspaper feels like running a serious story on this.
12. The DLC finds the position of powerless minority far easier to work within for their whored-out agenda than the position of having the white house occupied entirely by their whores.
13. Howard Dean, firey anti-Bush crusader, is actually a whore who doesn't really care about this election.
14. The Green party, which is the definition of a ideology-first, electoral-success-second party, is actually a bunch of corporate whores or is too stupid to get it.

OR

SET B: ALL MUST BE ACCEPTED.
1. Bush won Ohio based not on fraud but instead on lies during the campaign season, and thus won re-election legally, though immorally.
2. A bunch of irregularities are attributable to general incompetence and individual dishonest workers.

[RaulVB]

15. Not dumb, but not very honest either

This is not about "stats."

It's about well documented fraudulent activities that prevented African American from voting and machines that were kept locked away from regular voters!

Simple.

Elections in Indonesia are more clean the ones "US made".

It's your choice to play blind, indeed.

[Lone Pawn]

Well documented individual cases.

No actual PROOF of systematic exists fraud here. And unless you have that, our BEST CASE scenario is some election workers lose their jobs. Wow. We concentrate on 2004 'injustices' and sacrifice what remains of the DNC's reputation and gain a permanent "sore losers who only care about winning elections" reputation to ruin the careers of some pitifully low-level RNC operatives, while the RNC spends all its time framing the 2006 and 2008 elections in their favor.

Now who's playing blind? I'd rather keep my eyes on actually, oh, I don't know, winning an election. It might be nice to have the ability to undo the evil things Bush is doing, rather than simply having the ability to whimper about them on forums.

[RaulVB]

25. Massive disinfranchisement of voters...

Because they belong to a particular ethnic group is fraud anywhere. It has become a common practice under the Republican regime and is accepted by some people like you.

You don't want to deal with it, keep your eyes closed then.

That's your democratic privilege.

[Lone Pawn]

35. I'm not fucking accepting it.

Did I say anything where I said "this is okay?" Don't put words in my mouth.

Look, what I'm saying is that you don't have any concrete proof of this. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But what it does mean is that only will nobody believe you when you say that, they won't even pay attention to you. You won't get anywhere--unless you're happy to have everyone think of the far left as the Tinfoil Hat Community.

My eyes aren't closed, RaulVB. They prefer to look forward, though, instead of concentrating on a past battle we don't have the ammunition to win.

[RaulVB]

37. But we do have enough fucking ammo!

And those voters have the right to vote and participate in this "democracy"...

Don't want to be part of it, get out of the way!

[Lone Pawn]

40. If we had enough ammunition,

PERHAPS OUR OWN PEOPLE WOULD BE LISTENING TO US!

Do you think Al Franken doesn't know about this? Michael Moore? Dean? Trippi? MoveOn? Are the 2000 media crusaders all ignorant, are they working against us, or could it be that we don't have any actual ammunition to use?

[pointsoflight]

23. Sorry, you just don't get it.

You want proof of widespread fraud BEFORE we jump on board and investigate. Well, I have two responses to that. First, how can one possibly prove fraud without first investigating? That's ridiculous. The standard for investigating should not be proof, but reasonable suspicion. And we very clearly have that--we have the statistical anomalies, we have strong evidence of suppression in many forms, we have clear indicators of miscounts in at least some precincts (like 99% voter turnout and third party candidates getting as many votes as Kerry), we have partisan election officials who are stonewalling, we have direct evidence of machine tampering, and we have clear cases of prima facie fraud as defined by Ohio state law.

Second, my response to those who say "prove there was fraud" is prove there WASN'T fraud. See, the problem we face is that our electoral process is not transparent, the equipment used to count the vote is extremely insecure, we don't even do the most basic testing of election equipment, and we don't even do the the most basic auditing to verify accuracy. Given this, it is nearly impossible to prove beyond any doubt that there was or was not fraud.

Businesses routinely audit their books. Cashiers at your local Costco or local bank have to audit their cash drawer at the end of their shift. You and I "audit" our checking accounts when we balance our check books. Yet we don't even do the most basic audit for the most important decision we make as an electorate?

That's ludicrous, and we as an electorate should not stand for it, no matter what our party affiliation.

[Lone Pawn]

50. Not at all. First of all, I want proof of election fraud not

before we investigate, but before we say "BUSH STOLE THE ELECTION." That's a pretty fucking serious charge, and your case better not only hold water, it better be vacuum-sealed airtight before you show anyone, or else you'll be laughed at.

Now your second "response." Are you not getting this? Let's see this from America's perspective. The accused is the President of the United States. He holds the most respected office in the world. The accuser is an anonymous person on the internet with no accountability whatsoever. The charge? The 2004 election was actually won by John Kerry, and despite the several-million-vote popular margin, it was won entirely by fraud in the state of Ohio. Backing up the defendant's story? Not only anyone who currently holds any sort of office in the Federal government or the State of Ohio, but many preeminent members of the opposition, a few of which have actually charged him with outright fraud in 2000. The accusers' witnesses? Several other residents of the internet. No nationally known names, though a single journalist has said that their charges are interesting. Who has the burden of proof here?

I'm not saying we shouldn't investigate. I'm saying we can't say there was enough to switch the election.

[pointsoflight]

57. And what I'm saying is this...

You're right, we can't definitively say there WAS enough to switch the election, but no one can definitively say there WASN'T enough to switch the election either. Because we have an electoral process that is not transparent and does include any sort of audit to verify accuracy, we just have no idea how well the vote totals reflect the actual intent of the electorate.

We, as an electorate, should be up in arms about this. This is America, not a friggin' third world country. Yet our electoral process does not even meet international standards for elections--international standards that we ourselves played a part in writing!

How fuckin' ridiculous is that?

Tens of millions of Americans, as estimated by one recent poll, do not trust the results of this year's election. Why? Because our electoral process is not trustworthy and the people/companies running our election are not trustworthy.

[smartvoter]

68. Well said. The crux of the issue is we SHOULD know. nt

[bush_is_wacko]

79. Innocent until PROVED guilty = Prove there wasn't fraud!

Isn't this still the standard for our legal system? We present the evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, dissect it in a court of law and either convict or acquit by a preponderance of the evidence. How is it that American's have decide election fraud (fraud being the key crime here) is different from, say, defrauding little old ladies out of their retirement savings?

[pointsoflight]

9. Everyone needs to be clear on what we have here, too.

Even if you're skeptical that there was massive fraud in the sense of actualy vote stealing/switching, we do have all of this:

1) Clear evidence of voter suppression and disenfranchisement
2) Clear evidence of machine tampering
3) Clear violations of Ohio election laws that amount to prima facie fraud as defined by the Ohio constitution

[shance]

10. Smart voter, you are.

Great point.

How can anyone say there was or wasn't "enough" fraud to throw the election. Im glad you shed light on what is a pretty ignorant statement made by some who are unwilling to look at the facts.

[Lone Pawn]

16. Here, I'll show you how I can say that.

What I see, after looking at the actual facts, is a bunch of small irregularities. Since we're making a pretty outragous accusation, the burden of proof is on us. That is to say, if nobody can prove if there was or wasn't enough fraud, than we plain and simple don't have a case.

[pointsoflight]

31. But where's the audit? Where's the investigation?

Do we have indisputable facts that prove there was widespread fraud at a level to overturn the election? Well, not that we have seen.

But how can we possibly have the necessary facts without collecting any of the necessary data--without FIRST doing audits, and where there are reasonable suspicions, doing thorough investigations?

I'm sorry, but your thinking doesn't make sense. You want proof BEFORE embarking on an investigation. If that's how our legal system worked, only a very small fraction of real crimes would be prosecuted.

The appropriate standard is not PROOF, but reasonable suspicion.

[Lone Pawn]

54. Not proof before investigation.

What I want is evidence before the accusation is made, not the investigation.

[gulogulo]

11. Why don't you prove there was fraud - you personally can do it

If you are sure fraud has occurred in Ohio or Florida - why don't you go and prove the fraud by recounting the votes. You, personally.

After the "canvassing period" ends, the election records - ballots and polling books - become public record. This means that anyone can recount them if they pay for the county workers' time that it takes.

If there is (as there seems to be) a big group of DUers that is convinced that there was fraud, and who are interested in uncovering it regardless of the fact that it won't install Kerry as president - why not collect the money and do those recounts? Ohio, Florida, New Mexico - anywhere you like?

Miami Herald has already done this in 3 counties in Florida. I have seen reports of some people doing it on their own in other counties in Florida. I believe the cost of the recount in those counties was $10/hour for the time that it takes.

"But it will be too late" - too late for what? Too late to have Kerry as president - assuredly. But not too late to prove fraud, and taint Bush's second term - if massive fraud is proven.

I calculated, based on the costs of Florida recounts by people from www.recountflorida.com that the total cost of recount in Ohio that will need to be paid to the BOEs should be around $300,000. Warren county, for example, was 100,000 votes - so it should cost about $5,000 to recount. I am sure every DUer who is dead sure that widespread fraud has been perpetrated in Ohio will run, not walk, to donate/volunteer/participate in such a recount.

[txindy]

21. You're sure fond of this post since you've put it in multiple threads

We've already donated the money to recount Ohio once. Where do you think Cobb and Badnarik got the money? Volunteers are there, now, as we post. Once this recount is done, I'm sure there will be follow-up by one side or the other.

What you're advocating all over the board is already happening.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pointsoflight]

43. Actually, it's happening in Florida, too.

http://uscountvotes.org/

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[txindy]

45. They're already there

Who gave the money? Who travelled to Ohio to recount or oversee the recounting? It's all in past threads here. Try looking them up. It'll be easier once you become a paying DU member and can use the search function. We've already put up the money and the manpower in Ohio. That's why this is happening right now.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[txindy]

55. Who paid for this recount? Who is observing it?

Why do you think Blackwell complained so much about the costs of the recount not being covered by the listed fees? The fees we paid. Too bad for him.

We're there. Right now. And we paid for what is happening. Right now.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[txindy]

58. I'm not resisting anything

No one is. Nothing can be done without interference by election officials until this process underway now is concluded.

This recount, machine/hand/whatever, was paid for and witnessed by US. Pay attention. This has to happen, first, before anything else can proceed. Legally. Not according to YOUR timetable, but LEGALLY.

Adding: Oh, and Blackwell has broken the law by 'letting' his officials choose the precincts to be recounted beforehand rather than randomly. These may be his "terms," but he'll be answering for them, soon enough.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[txindy]

60. Because, right now, Ohio is our focus

Obviously.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[txindy]

62. Fine

As soon as I can clone myself and my resources to cover every state at once, I'll do that. In the meantime, everything in Ohio is progressing very nicely. Not for you, obviously, but that's not my problem. Junior will be unemployed soon. Deal with it.

Don't let the door hit you.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[txindy]

64. Glad to see you're open-minded

:eyes:

Bye.

[davidgmills]

72. You try it yourself

But you told me you don't want to do it either because you think there was no widespread fraud.

If you don't want to do it and spend your own bucks, why ask us?

I suspect you just want to get us off track.

I don't think you are helping if you are not willing to put your money where your mouth is.

[shraby]

12. If anyone went to the trouble of

committing fraud in this election it would have been for one pupose and that was to flip the election. There is evidence of fraud, no doubt about that. We can assume there was enough of it to move the election to Bush.

Otherwise, why bother to commit the crime?

[Lone Pawn]

14. Sorry, but

'they're a bunch of bastards who obviously stole it because why wouldn't they?' doesn't really convince anyone who doesn't already accept that they're bastards. And since they got 4 million more votes in the popular election than we did, we really shouldn't take that tack.

[RaulVB]

19. They didn't...

But is very hard for some people to deal with reality.

Americans are not better than anybody and this is not a real democracy.

Is tough, indeed.

The biggest fraud in history took place on November 2nd!

[Lone Pawn]

27. Look, they won the popular vote.

Do you have even a scrap of evidence that could conceivably shift two million Kerry votes to Bush's side? The biggest fraud in history took place in 2000. We have proof. We have recounts. We have purged voter rolls. Now? We have "probabilities" and "likelihoods" and long lines and issues with individual machines. Sorry, but that won't convince anyone.

[RaulVB]

29. Deal with reality...

Nothing else to add.

[Lone Pawn]

36. Odd, that's just what I was about to tell you.

And you know what the funny thing is? Not only are the centrists and right wing agreeing with me (of course they would), but John Kerry, the DNC, Al Franken, Michael Moore, MoveOn.org, James Carville, and Howard Dean are also all telling you that you're not dealing with reality.

[RaulVB]

39. Wrong!

Don't know what you're reading but is not written in English, I guess!

[Lone Pawn]

42. Wrong? Hmm.

Al Franken started saying "get over it" two days after the election.
Howard Dean and Michael Moore said "get over it" in interviews in the latest issue of Rolling Stone. Can you actually not understand things that disagree with you?

I'm sorry you don't like reality. It's much more painful to admit that Bush won this one, I know.

[RaulVB]

46. Franken and Moore don't speak on my name

Try to find people with better credentials.

I'm glad you took off Kerry's name from your argument this time around!

Have a good life in that parallel universe you are living.

G'day.

[Lone Pawn]

52. I'll add Kerry's name to it too. Who has credentials that you like?

Is Howard Dean enough for you? Is John Kerry enough for you--there. He's back on the list. I thought it was obvious enough, since he conceded the election, saying "It's time we move on." He, too, has said that he believes there were irregularities that deserve investigating, but that he does not challenge the election results. I'll live in my "parallel universe"--the one in which, you know, reality occurs, and the entire population of the human earth save you and a few hundred other members of DU lives.

[Carolab]

44. Evidence is being suppressed

dummy

[pointsoflight]

33. It's now less than 3 million and shrinking, by the way.

Interesting how that difference is shrinking as verifiable paper ballots--the absentee's and provisionals--have been coming in, huh?

[Lone Pawn]

38. Well, since the Dems had a massive

absentee / provisional voting push, which is what I spent over half my volunteer time working on, I'd say no, it's not that surprising.

[Career Prole]

26. Absolutely! Try cheating on your taxes and defend yourself by saying

"The national budget wasn't affected at all!" and see where that gets you!
Good post!
:yourock:

[Joe Chi Minh]

28. In effect, they're taking

the line of the mainstream media: "'It's the man bites dog' thing. However, serious, however ubiquitous, fraud can never be "News" in American elections, even elections for the President. Especially, for the President! Its absence..., now that *would* be newsworthy.

[wlubin]

53. All you need is one piece of evidence that the eletronic paperless

voting machnines were hacked, and that alone puts what, like 1/3 of the votes into question?

[thanatonautos]

65. Having a little bit of fraud is like being a little bit pregnant. n/t

[Kellis]

66. exactly

thanks for the post OP.

It is SO funny watching people try to get us off point here....you have to wonder why they are trying soooo hard-lol.

[MarkusQ]

69. Here's a DUMMER argument:

I love this one, which is closely related: "Bush won by such a wide margin that fraud is unlikely to have played a significant roll."

So I ask them: "Would you, by the same logic, be ten times as sure that there had been no fraud if he'd gotten ten times as many votes?"

When they say: "Of course!" I ask them if they know the populaton of the United States...

--MarkusQ

[Higans]

71. here is the dumbest argument:

"Well you didn't speak up about fraud before the election, why should any one worry about it now?"

That's the one that drives me nuts. I usually reply "Because if we don't worry about it now, there will be fraud in 06 and 08 and 10.

[davidgmills]

70. Re-exit poll Ohio Now

I have posted many places that we need to re-exit poll Ohio now to have the proof that the fraud did indeed throw the election. See my post today on Will Pitt's post.

I am getting tired of repeating it.

I am a lawyer and you have to have some very strong proof that the fraud made a difference if you want to win in court.

Proving fraud without proving that it cost Kerry the election is like proving someone ran a red light but having no proof that it did any harm.

[buzzard]

75. Problem is exit polls can only be conducted once voters have exited the

voting booth, anything conducted months later is not an exit poll.

[AllegroRondo]

78. Its illegal either way

You can be cited for running a red light even if no harm was done.

Even if it would not change the outcome of the election, fraud is still illegal and can still be prosecuted.

Will proof of fraud be enough to overturn the election or get a re-vote? unknown.

Will it be enough to prosecute some people? Hell yes.

[AndrewClarke]

73. The margin in the Ukraine was 871,402 votes . . .

. . . and nobody seems to doubt that the election there was stolen.

871,402 > 118,775.

[smartvoter]

74. Hey! We already know that math doesn't count in elections. nt

[McCamy Taylor]

76. The Most Commonly Cited By the GOP Is "They All Do It"...

....It's how they justify their fraud to newbie Republicans. "The Dems are cheating bastards. And they breed like crazy so they can collect their welfare checks. We have to cheat to level the playing field."

[genieroze]

77. Here is a famous dumb argument

http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/swann/herblock/crook.html

edited for spelling

[hereinmissouri]

80. Suppressed voters not included in exit polls

Here's the way I look at it.

There were people that were unable to vote - long lines, registrations thrown out, etc. I'm thinking this group was not part of the exit polls. Even with this type of fraud, Kerry was winning. So the tabulation fraud was necessary.

We can't quantify the first type of fraud & have to say it's not enough to make a difference in the outcome.

The second type we know happened because the stats suggest the probability of it not to have happened are almost nil. A lot of people are working on proving this & it doesn't matter if it is reported by the MSM, they're not quitting.

Hopefully, whenever this is proved, both parties will be outraged. I'm not sure of this because of the reaction to no WMDs.

[merh]

81. What evidence do you have that there was fraud?

Please let us know what rock solid, actual evidence exists that clearly reflects the fraud.

[hereinmissouri]

83. Matter of time

Proof that there were more voting machines in rep precincts then in dem precincts per registered voters? I don't think that's even in dispute.

Solid proof that the computer tabulation program was fraudulent? None yet. Only solid suspicion, due primarily to the exit polls, backed by questions raised by the outcome of other races on the tickets.