Air America's Cognitive Dissonance

[davidgmills]

I live in Memphis and about two weeks ago we got Air America. How refreshing it is to hear a liberal point of view on the radio, something I have not heard in years.

That said, I have heard nothing about the disrepancies between the exit polls showing a Kerry win by about 3% vs. the actual tabulations showing a Bush win of 2%.

What gives? We now have very real proof that this election was, in all probablity, a computer generated election coup. But not a single mention or hint on Air America that this has occurred.

I guess they have thier own cognitive dissonance.

If we can't get Air America to bring this coup to light, what chance do we ever have of getting the mainstream media to do it?

[Protagoras]

1. I've heard numerous discussions about the exit polls

and about BBV and pretty much everything else we've discussed here. A lot depends on the rest of the news-of-the-day and which show you're listening to, but I guarantee that Al Franken and Randi Rhodes have both talked about this at length in the last few months.

[hinachan]

3. And don't forget....

The Air America people are also trying to focus on the 2006 election, so they're talking about candidates and issues, as well. Hillary Clinton is going to introduce legislation intended to protect the vote, so you can bet AAR will be talking about that, too.

[dweller]

4. and Stephanie Miller did also

not daily, there's just so much else to talk about.

she was on it last week several times, and for weeks before.

Right now she's talking about the stolen vote at 10:26am.

dp

[Darknyte7]

5. Actually...

Stephanie Miller is talking about election stuff now... (10:27 am eastern)

[T Roosevelt]

2. Randi and Mike did a lot on this before AAR came on in Memphis

the other shows tended to cover it less, because I don't think they were particularly comfortable with election/voting issues. Randi and Mike went through it in 2000, and know lots about voting...

[davidgmills]

6. Thanks. I'll keep listening

But I would have thought that with the blockbuster USCountVotes article and subsequent reply to criticism of the original article, both of which came out in the last ten days, this would have been a topic they would have been all over.

This morning all I heard was about the psuedo journalist who worked for some Republican rag and had Presidential access while secretly being gay. Hipocritcal? Yes. As important as a coup? Hardly.

[emcguffie]

15. hey david --

do you know Rayner? (I'm originally from Memphis, too)

[davidgmills]

28. Who's he?

[Amaryllis]

16. Al Franken is useless on this. Totally doesn't get it. Randi is all over

it; so is Mike Malloy.

[FreepFryer]

26. Al Franken gets it, and he gets to 'recover' a bit of breathing room...

...by obliquely appearing to 'not get it'.

If he had been a leader of the 'We Was Robbed' crew, he would have already come into the crosshairs, and we'd never see his FrankenFace.

This way, he can continue to opine on current issues without a vulnerability.

[Amaryllis]

30. You really think he gets it? I haven't heard him say anything to indicate

that he does. I sure wish he got it, but he doesn't talk like he does.

[FreepFryer]

31. He simply says he doesn't think fraud happened. He has not actively...

...assailed the people involved, etc., like other 'Democrats' have.

We need to face the fact that there is a crisis of credibility in the Republican party, and slam on it over and over and over. Election Fraud is one part of that.

[Amaryllis]

35. That's what I meant; he says he doesn't think there was fraud. Don't know

how he can think that. Seems like he would be well informed.

[FreepFryer]

36. Perhaps he is saying he hasn't decided there was. In one's own time. (n/t)

[mopinko]

7. even tho franken did not believe

he has given it some time. randi and mike did nothing but for most of november. randi, especially, covers any developments. both randi and mike never miss an opportunity to point out that * is not really elected.
they just couldn't spend every day doing the same story. (i think there was some pressure from 'above' to move on, tho. would like to get the full poop on that.)

[Amaryllis]

17. Huh? Randi was all over the entire month of November! Almost all she

talked about.

[mopinko]

19. isn't that what i said? nt

[Amaryllis]

34. Sorry, I missed the "but" in your post and read it as they did nothing!

[coffeenap]

8. Do you get "Unfiltered"? They have been on it now and then.

[veteran_for_peace]

9. A fellow Memphis Resident

YEAH!!!

[davidgmills]

27. There's two of us in Memphis?

Wow! Call me if you wish. 818-1999

[coffeenap]

10. Today on Unfiltered--

Today they mentioned that Congress is holding hearings on it now and that Blackwell, who is currently in Washington, did not show up when asked. Same with the SOS from Florida.

[dmac]

22. Is this a radio program or what? eom

[coffeenap]

32. Yes--Unfiltered is a show on AAR

IMO, it is one of the best there is. Lizz Winstead, creator of the Daily Show, with Rachel Maddow, an Oxford educated (and all the way out lesbian) and, twice weekly, Chuck D. as the hosts. I love this show--it covers lots of the kind of things DUers would like. I am sure they would take note of anything anyone here had to say.

email: [e-mail]
blog: http://unfilteredradio.com/

[Mistwell]

11. You belive in the Exit Poll Myths

1) US Exit Polls are historically extremely accurate, even in a close race.

FALSE. In fact, raw exit poll data, for the prior four Presidential elections, have always overstated the Democratic vote, sometimes by more than they overstated for this election.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_11/005178.php

Year / Exit Poll / Results / Dem Lead / Dem Actual
1988 / Dukakis: 50.3% Bush: 49.7% / +0.6% / -7.7%
1992 / Clinton: 46% Bush: 33.2% / +12.8% / +5.6%
1996 / Clinton: 52.2% Dole: 37.5% / +14.7% / +8.5%
2000 / Gore: 48.5% Bush: 46.2% / +2.3% / +0.5%

“As you can see, the raw exit poll results always overstate the Democratic vote, sometimes by as much as eight percentage points. So the fact that the raw results this year overstated Kerry's actual vote tally is hardly cause for alarm.”

2) Internationally, Exit Polls are very accurate – just look at Ukraine.

FALSE. Ukraine’s second election was one of the most observed elections in the history of the world. International observers from all over the globe, including the UN, paid special attention to the last election, and counted and recounted every vote (which were paper votes) to make sure no fraud took place. Despite this, in not one, not two, but ALL THREE EXIT POLLS, the polls deviated from actual election results by a great deal more than the margin of error.

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/10499250.htm

Exit Poll 1: 58.1% to 38.4%, MOE=2
Exit Poll 2: 56.5% to 41.3%, no MOE given
Exit Poll 3: 56% to 41%, MOE=2

Official results: http://tinyurl.com/3ufxp

51.99% to 44.2%

As can be seen, the final results varied from all the exit polls by much more than the margin of error.

3) Experts agree Exit Polls like this one are very accurate.

The leading expert on the subject is Warren Mitofsky, the father of exit polls. Mitofsky is also a lifelong liberal and “apparently holds no brief for Bush.”

http://www.russbaker.com/TomPaine_com%20-%20Election%202004%20Stolen%20Or%20Lost.htm

Mitofsky does not believe the early raw exit poll data (the stuff showing a Kerry win) indicates fraud. Indeed, he thinks the early raw data is inaccurate, and not useful until it is weighted with his formula. Once the formula was applied after all data came in, the election returned to being within the margin of error.

http://mayflowerhill.blogspot.com/2004/11/mayflower-hill-exclusive-warren.html

He has never, EVER claimed that the margin of error in his early exit polls (the ones that TIA likes to quote constantly) are set for detecting election fraud or even set for the vote itself. The MOE is set ONLY for the Demographic data. It is a total myth that the margin or error is accurate, or ever meant to be accurate, for the vote itself.

4) All the State-by-State deviations between the exit polls came out to favor Bush in the actual counted vote.

FALSE: Of the 50 states, 40 deviated to Bush, and 10 deviated to Kerry. Some of the 10 deviating to Kerry were considered swing states prior to the election, and no explanation has been offered for why exit polls would deviate in this way. It’s usually just ignored by those claiming exit polls prove fraud.

5) Studies all show the exit polls work to detect election fraud in the US.

FALSE. In fact, almost all studies on this exit poll show it is seriously flawed:

http://www.exit-poll.net/election-night/EvaluationJan192005.pdf and see also

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0411/S00140.htm

6) There is no explanation offered for why exit polls would favor Democrats.

FALSE: The subject was studied, and a very reasonable explanation offered even prior to this election:

http://www.duke.edu/~mms16/non_response2000.pdf

7) All the polls prior to the election showed Kerry winning.

FALSE: In the 3 months prior to the election, many polls showed Bush winning the popular vote. Not all of them (like Zogby), but many of them. Here are a few:

GW/Battleground (1000 LV) 10/31 - 11/1 50% 46% Bush +4
Rasmussen (3,000 LV) 10/30 - 11/1 50.2% 48.5% Bush +1.7
TIPP (936 LV) 10/30 - 11/1 46.9% 44.3% Bush +2.6
FOX News (1200 LV) 10/30 - 10/31 46% 48% Kerry +2
CNN/USAT/Gallup (1573 LV) 10/29 - 10/31 49% 47% Bush +2
CBS/NY Times (643 LV) 10/28 - 10/30 50% 47% Bush +3
ARG (1258 LV) 10/28 - 10/30 48% 49% Kerry +1
Newsweek (882 LV) 10/27 - 10/29 51% 45% Bush +6
Battleground (1000 LV) 10/25 - 10/28 51% 46% Bush +5
CNN/USAT/Gallup (1195 LV) 10/22 - 10/24 52% 46% Bush +6
Los Angeles Times (881 LV) 10/21 - 10/24 49% 48% Bush +1
Newsweek (880 LV) 10/21 - 10/22 48% 47% Bush +1
Time (803 LV) 10/19 - 10/21 52% 47% Bush +5
GW/Battleground (1000 LV) 10/18 - 10/21 49% 45% Bush +4
Rasmussen (3,000 LV) 10/17 - 10/19 48% 47% Bush +1
FOX News (1000 LV) 10/17 - 10/18 48% 43% Bush +5
CBS News (678 LV) 10/14 - 10/17 47% 46% Bush +1
CNN/USAT/Gallup (788 LV) 10/14 - 10/16 52% 44% Bush +8
Time (865 LV w/leaners) 10/14 - 10/15 48% 48% TIE
Newsweek (LV) 10/14 - 10/15 50% 45% Bush +5
GW/Battleground (1000 LV) 10/11 - 10/14 49% 46% Bush +3
CBS News (760 LV) 10/9 - 10/11 47% 46% Bush +1
ICR (763 LV) 10/9 - 10/11 49% 46% Bush +3
CNN/USAT/Gallup (793 LV) 10/9 - 10/10 48% 50% Kerry +2
Rasmussen (3,000 LV) 10/7 - 10/9 50% 46% Bush +4
Time (886 LV w/leaners) 10/6 - 10/7 47% 46% Bush +1
GW/Battleground (1250 LV) 10/3 - 10/7 49% 46% Bush +3
Fox News (1000 LV) 10/3 - 10/4 48% 45% Bush +3
ICR (762 LV)** 10/1 - 10/5 51% 46% Bush +5
ARG (800 LV) 10/2 - 10/4 46% 47% Kerry +1
CBS/NYT (561 LV) 10/1 - 10/3 48% 47% Bush +1
Zogby (1036 LV) 10/1 - 10/3 46% 45% Bush +1
CNN/USAT/Gallup (772 LV) 10/1 - 10/3 49% 49% TIE
Newsweek (1013 RV) 9/30 - 10/2 46% 49% Kerry +3
Battleground (1000 LV) 9/27 - 9/30 51% 44% Bush +7
LA Times (1100 LV) 9/25 - 9/28 51% 46% Bush +5
CNN/USAT/Gallup (758 LV) 9/24 - 9/26 52% 44% Bush +8
IBD/TIPP (649 LV) 9/22 - 9/27 45% 46% Kerry +1
Time (877 LV) 9/21 - 9/23 49% 43% Bush +6
FOX News (1000 LV) 9/21 - 9/22 45% 43% Bush +2
Battleground (1000 LV) 9/20 - 9/23 50% 45% Bush +5
CBS News (931 LV) 9/20 - 9/22 50% 41% Bush +9
Zogby (1066 LV) 9/17 - 9/19 47% 44% Bush +3
IBD/TIPP (650 LV) 9/14 - 9/18 46% 43% Bush +3
CNN/USAT/Gallup (767 LV) 9/13 - 9/15 55% 42% Bush +13
CBS News (1088 RV) 9/12 - 9/16 50% 42% Bush +8
Battleground (1000 LV) 9/12 - 9/15 49% 45% Bush +4
IBD/TIPP (674 LV) 9/7 - 9/12 47% 47% TIE
Newsweek (1003 RV) 9/9 - 9/10 50% 45% Bush +5
Zogby (1018 LV) 9/8 - 9/9 47% 45% Bush +2
Time (857 LV) 9/7 - 9/9 54% 42% Bush +12

[Helga Scow Stern]

13. Thank you for sharing.

:hi:

[Pooka Fey]

23. Why don't you post this on it's own thread in 2004 Election Results

if you're so convinced that "The Exit Polls Were Wrong".
Do you know what cognitive dissonance means - it's means you can be staring truth in the face and refuse to believe the evidence of your own eyes because it's contrasts so fully with your preconceived notions.

BTW, just to give an opposing viewpoint equal time, I tried to open the document explaining why "Repugs won't talk to exit pollers" (which has been discredited) and FYI, your document caused my computer to seize up. I had to cntrl/alt/delete to escape, and reopen IE to return here.

Anyway --- this argument has gotten really old, and I'm done now.

[Mistwell]

24. Response

Q: ""Why don't you post this on it's own thread in 2004 Election Results""

A: I did. It was earlier. You must have missed it.

Q: "Do you know what cognitive dissonance means - it's means you can be staring truth in the face and refuse to believe the evidence of your own eyes because it's contrasts so fully with your preconceived notions."

A: I 100% agree. However, it seems to be going the opposite way than you intended. When EVERY SINGLE PRIOR PRE-FINAL EXIT POLL DEVIATED FOR DEMOCRATS IN THE PAST, and yet you insist that this last exit poll was somehow unique and was accurate in the pre-final release in a manner that just so happens to conform with your preconceived notion that Kerry would win, I'd say it's you who have experienced cognitive dissonance.

Me, I think there WAS fraud, and Kerry MIGHT have won (and might not), but that such information is not in any way contained within the blatantly flawed exit poll process. I'm not going to let my pro-Kerry bias interfere with my analysis of the exit polls.

Q: "I tried to open the document explaining why "Repugs won't talk to exit pollers" (which has been discredited) and FYI, your document caused my computer to seize up. I had to cntrl/alt/delete to escape, and reopen IE to return here. "

A: It's not my document. It was a study. It was done prior to this election. I've never had trouble opening it, nor have I ever heard of anyone having trouble opening it, and it's been posted here before many times by myself and others. It's a standard PDF document. Perhaps you should ask someone to help you, if you really want to read it.

[Pooka Fey]

25. Your last response re: your posted link caused my computer to seize

Proves my point about your inability to register new information that contrasts with your firmly held belief systems EXACTLY.

Instead of understanding that when I opened the document it caused a problem - you throw information/previously held beliefs that "nobody else has ever had any problems opening this so you must be a retard" right back in my face.

I must be a retard. The exit polls must be wrong.

Voila. Thanks for proving my point for me.

[Mistwell]

37. Stop pouting

I offerred advice. It's a normal PDF doc. There is nothing more I can do to help you open the doc other than advising you to ask a friend for help. What more did you want me to say? I am understanding. I am not calling you a retard (I do not even like that word), but beyond coming over to your house and doing it for you, I figured the next best thing was to suggest you ask someone for help. That you took that advice in a negative way should tell you more about yourself than me.

And, by the way, if you are going to pout and claim you're done with the issue...you probably should come back and tell me how I am still wrong :) That is, unless the final word is more important to you than standing by your stated beliefs.

[Pooka Fey]

38. I'll give TruthisAll the last word - Latest analysis - 17% 1st time voters

in 2004 election:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x323939

[Mistwell]

42. Hahahaha! TIA?

This is the same TIA who will tell you with a straight face that the only explanation for all prior early exit polls since 1988 showing a bias for Democrats is that all prior elections, dating back to 1988, were fixed by Republicans (despite Republicans losing the popular vote 3 out of those 4 times, and would have won the fourth against Dukakis based on the electoral college even without any fraud, and in an era of NO electronic voting), and that no other possible explanation is anywhere near as reasonable as that massive conspriracy theory.

This is also the TIA who uses a margin of error set to check gender, race, and age, and instead plugs that margin of error stat into "how people voted" stats and claims it's still valid to do that, knowing full well the screen shot of the newspaper he likes to use left out by accident/space reasons the full explanation of the margin of error.

TIA knows damn well all of his own analysis is faulty due to not having a margin of error for the "how people voted" stat. He just likes the attention he gets from the few remaining people who follow his daily flawed analysis. In his better days, he even admits that his margin of error data is flawed, and he really needs the raw data and full formula used by Mitofsky in order to conduct a real analysis. But most the time, he just ignores that issue. This is his only issue...the only thing he talks about that gets him attention. He's gonna milk it as long as he can.

[Pooka Fey]

43. Its not that complicated, Dude. Swing the MOE out another 1% or 2% and

the shit still stinks. Then we need to talk about how Repugs don't let Black, Hispanic and Native American people vote as easily as Whites. Also the Exit Polls are just one slice of a big stinking shit pie. Off-topic, but Fl & OH SOS's the only 2 to pull a no-show at the National Meeting of U.S. Secretaries of State to FIX VOTING PROBLEMS. Buh-bye.

[Mistwell]

44. It's ALWAYS off

Hey I am with you that there was fraud...just not on the exit poll stuff. The early exit polls have always been, and as far as I can tell always will be, off by a lot, and always in favor of Democrats. They were off by this much, or more, in most years. So moving the non-applicable MOE out doesn't help.

[davidgmills]

45. From USCountVotes Latest Response

Tokaji and Blumenthal note that there were also widespread discrepancies between exit polls and the official results of the 1992 Presidential election. Their implicit argument appears to be that two large unexplained exit poll discrepancies in a period of twelve years is simply additional evidence that exit polling is unreliable. The alternative interpretation that two episodes of widespread vote counting errors may have occurred within a period of twelve years is equally coherent. There is no reason to presume that widespread vote counting errors are a brand new phenomenon. Rather than simply selecting one of the three alternative explanations for exit poll discrepancies on the basis of personal whim or bias, US Count Votes prefers to subject all suspicious exit poll and voting discrepancies to objective, precinct-level statistical and demographic analysis. It should also be emphasized that an unquestioned predisposition to automatically discard US exit polls whenever they show significant variance from official vote tallies guarantees that widespread fraud, if it does occur, will be certain to go unchallenged.

[Mistwell]

46. It's the EARLY counts that are always off

This is the actual record of the early exit polls for all years since they started using exit polling (1988):

Year / Exit Poll / Results / Dem Lead / Dem Actual
1988 / Dukakis: 50.3% Bush: 49.7% / +0.6% / -7.7%
1992 / Clinton: 46% Bush: 33.2% / +12.8% / +5.6%
1996 / Clinton: 52.2% Dole: 37.5% / +14.7% / +8.5%
2000 / Gore: 48.5% Bush: 46.2% / +2.3% / +0.5%

Every single year, without fail, they have been off by well more than the margin of error. Every single year, the "unadjusted" exit poll results always overstate the Democratic vote. It wasn't just 2004, and it wasn't just 1992, it's every single one.

Only once data is "adjusted" to match the actual vote do the exit polls start to fall in line with the margin of error.

The only logical conclusion one can draw from this is that exit polls are flawed. The early polls simply are not accurate. And yet, all the "exit polls prove fraud" threads here assume that the EARLY polls are correct...despite a 100% track record of failure year after year after year.

[davidgmills]

47. Did you read what they said?

You can draw three conclusions. The exit polls are wrong, or the actual count is wrong, or both are wrong.

I have been telling you this now for it seems like weeks. For you, there is only one way of seeing this: the count is always right and the polls are wrong.

[Mistwell]

48. Did you read it yourself

Your post said only TWO polls were off. That was incorrect. ALL the early exit polls were off.

I do not think the count is necessarily correct. I do not think you MUST believe the count is correct to believe the exit polls are inaccurate. It is not mutally exclusive positions to think the early exit poll is inaccuarate AND the actual count is inaccurate.

For me, I have never once said the count is right. In fact, I have consistently said I think there was fraud, and I do not know if that fraud was enough to tip the election one way or the other, but I want to find out.

That you think I have said "the count is always right " means you don't actually care what my position is, just the strawman you want others to think my position is.

I can be against using the exit polls to prove fraud, while still supporting the anti-fraud movement. I just don't let my pro-Democratic bias blind me to the fact that early exit polls are useless in proving fraud.

[davidgmills]

50. Fraud

As I have pointed out on this board several times, fraud is a legal concept which implies that this is a problem for the courts and that the courts can handle this.

This is not a problem the courts can handle anymore than the courts could handle a military coup.

This was a computer generated, corporate orchestrated, election coup.

Computers have been counting votes now for nearly forty years. What the exit polls tell me is that computer generated election malfeasance has been taking place for a long time.

If you don't want to believe that exit polls are accurate enough to prove election malfeasance, it is your right to have that cognitive dissonance.

[Mistwell]

51. And it's your right to believe in wacky conspiracy theories

To believe what you believe, you have to believe that literally thousands of Republicans secretly met going back to at least 1988 to rig each individual vote counting machine. Because back in 1988, each one had to be calibrated independantly, and each one had no way at all to know which party was which in counting votes, where they were placed on the page (and it varied from district to district), how many seats were open, whether those seats were even partisan seats or not, or whether they were propositions instead, all making it impossible to fix the vote from a central program. Indeed, they used literally dozens of programs, most of them also used to tab punch card test scores of students in schools. So, to do what you are claiming, it had to involve thousands of people spread across the country.

These evil conspirators all met so secretly that nobody has ever heard about it to date. They all risked massive criminal charges, every four years since then.

And, with all of this risk and massive secrecy...they failed at what they were trying to do each and every time. Three out of four times the Democrat still got the popular vote. The fourth time, they would have won the electoral college even without their "fraud". So, all of that was just massive risk for no actual gain.

That is what you have to believe to think that early unadjusted exit polls are more accurate than the actual vote count going back to 1988.

Or, you could listen to pretty much every expert in the field that exists (not just random Democratic statisticians with their nose in this field for partisan reasons, but actual polling experts), who all agree that exit polls need to be adjusted prior to reliance on their data, and that part of that adjustment involves the actual vote. That we simply do not poll with a sufficient quantity to test for fraud with our exit polls in this country, and never have, and would need to spend a lot more money on exit polling to actually do that (like other countries have and do).

I am with you that there was fraud this last election. I am just not with you that early exit polls are the way to prove that fraud. Anyone who still thinks early exit polls are accurate for counting how people voted just isn't educated enough about exit polling, and is probably too biased to be open minded enough to find out for themselves at this point.

[davidgmills]

29. Mr. Cognitive Dissonance speaks again!

[orleans]

40. yea, well, i only believed zogby anyway

and he said the election was kerrys to lose.

and those exit polls must have been really screwed up in illinois because they matched the votes. (maybe because we had a PAPER TRAIL?)

[Peace Patriot]

52. Well, mistwell, there's you and then there's...

Josh Mitteldorf, Ph.D. - Temple University Statistics Department
Steven F. Freeman, PhD - Center for Organizational Dynamics, University of Pennsylvania
Brian Joiner, PhD - Prof. of Statistics and Director of Statistical Consulting (ret), University of Wisconsin
Frank Stenger, PhD in mathematics - School of Computing, University of Utah
Richard G. Sheehan, PhD - Department of Finance, University of Notre Dame
Elizabeth Liddle, MA - (UK) PhD candidate at the University of Nottingham
Paul F. Velleman, Ph.D. - Department of Statistical Sciences, Cornell University
Victoria Lovegren, Ph.D. - Department of Mathematics, Case Western Reserve University
Campbell B. Read, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Department of Statistical Science, Southern Methodist University
Kathy Dopp, MS in mathematics - USCountVotes, President
Also Peer Reviewed by USCountVotes’ core group of statisticians and independent reviewers, at: (exit poll analysis - 1 in 10 million odds against Bush win)
http://uscountvotes.org/ucvAnalysis/US/USCountVotes_Re_Mitofsky-Edison.pdf

Exit poll analysis: astronomical odds against Bush win
Dr. Steven Freeman: http://www.appliedresearch.us/sf/epdiscrep.htm
Dr. Ron Baiman: http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/997
Dr. Webb Mealy: http://www.selftest.net/redshift.htm
Jonathan Simon:http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00142.htm

Florida: 130,000 to 230,000 phantom votes for Bush--paper vs. electronic voting:
Dr. Michael Haut & UC Berkeley stats team: http://ucdata.berkeley.edu

Johns Hopkins report on insecurity of electronic voting:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00196.htm#5

Easy demo of the how insecure voting machines are:
http://www.chuckherrin.com/hackthevote.htm

"Myth Breakers: Facts About Electronic Elections" (2nd edition): www.votersunite.org

Ohio vote suppression: http://www.bpac.info

Documentation of widespread machine fraud and dirty tricks in over 20 states: http://www.flcv.com/ussumall.html

Democratic Underground (ignatzmouse):
(North Carolina: absentee ballot vs. electronic, inexplicable 9% edge to Bush in electronic:)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x45003
(also at:) http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/12/233831/06

Democratic Underground (TruthIsAl)l: "To believe Bush won, you have to believe…"

Part 1
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1316010

Part 2
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1358806

Part 3
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x197878

Democratic Underground (TruthIsAll): The Time Zone Discrepancy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x318693

In progress compilations of various articles and materials on 2004 Election Fraud:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x311105

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=304579

-------

The exit poll analyses are only one of numerous other indicators that Bush didn't win. The analyses are not solely based on who won the exit polls, but rather on the very weird skew in the exit polls toward Bush in the battleground states--a skew that is not explainable by any conceivable bias in the exit polling (bias in the exit polling would show up more or less evenly across the board). And when you look at all other sets of data, nothing to do with the exit polls, similar, inexplicable, large skews toward Bush appear--whether it's electronic vs. paper, top of the ticket vs. lower ticket, predictable vote vs. actual vote, or touchscreens always, without fail, changing Kerry votes to Bush votes, never the other way round.

In a predictable vote vs. actual vote analysis, Dr. Freeman adds up the large Democratic edge in new voter registration, 58% to 41% (!), the large jump from Nader to Kerry, and 2000 repeat voter statistics, and concludes that there were 4 to 8 million votes that Kerry should have gotten, and didn't get in the official tally. (Bush "won" by 3.5 million.)

But you only have to look at the DU (ignatzmouse) No. Carolina analysis--9% skew to Bush in electronic vs. absentee/early voting--to know that there was something very, very, very wrong with this election, and that the culprit is electronic voting systems, with their SECRET, proprietary programming code, owned and controlled by BushCon companies, who insisted on no paper trail. They were manufacturing and padding Bush's popular majority all over the country, even in states that they were going to win anyway.

The impossible (1 in 10 million odds) skew in the official tally vs. exit polls is just ADDITIONAL information in a MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE that the 2004 election was stolen.

[GuvWurld]

12. Consider the AAR Motive

AAR is run like most businesses, in pursuit of profit first and foremost. The format they have chosen in this effort gives many the false hope that the interests of We The People may finally be getting some large scale representation.

If this were the case, AAR would be rabidly advocating nothing short of revolution. Neither their stated goals nor their routine behavior come anywhere close to this.

We therefore have no reason to believe that their intentions lie anywhere along this path. Recognizing this allows We The People to adjust expectations and see AAR as just another false alternative.

[DELUSIONAL]

14. Randi and Mike Malloy have call in type programs

so call them and ask them to talk about the election fraud for the new listening audience in the new markets.

Both Randi Rhodes and Mike Malloy covered the election fraud -- in depth and so did some of the weekend hosts.

Check out Randi Rhodes and Mike Malloy's websites -- and you can download some of their post election shows.

Some people were complaining that they were talking about nothing but election fraud.

[Al-CIAda]

18. They need to cover it with regularity and with updates.

I have not heard ANYTHING about the group of professor's call for investigation...or Calif. attempting to get rid of SoS to install magic machines...


I'd also like to see them cover all the evidence that has acrued illustrating that 9-11 was an inside job. If that isn't worth covering, what is?

[Niche]

20. Yeah, NPR here did a better job of it... AAR went there for

a brief beat and lost steam - Geneane still says "voter fraud"... who knows. It pisses me off to no end.

[iconoclastNYC]

21. Election Fraud will Break

Its just the matter of when and how. Will it break in a way that hurts both parties or just the republicans? When it breaks will the right-wing media paint it to be a liberal attempt at a coup? Its very tricky. This scandal makes any other US scandal seem insignificant. The impact to our country would be huge. I think they have to do it just the right way. I hope this is the case.

[Bill Bored]

33. Randi, Mike and Laura Flanders on the weekend covered it all!

One of Laura's producers writes for freepress.org too. It's just that there are some naysayers on AA as well, entitled to their opinions.

[orleans]

39. i can't imagine having gone through november without "the goddess"

randi has been a saving grace through all of this. and mike malloy too.

when air america first hit the airwaves al franken was the big draw--everyone has heard of him and that was what got me tuned in.

and randi followed his show--that's when i first discovered her!

i rarely listen to al now. it's randi, randi, randi. then i take a break before it's three more hours with malloy.

i'm so grateful that we have this network -- it's been the high point amid so many lows this past year.

get some of of randi's shows online from november. you won't believe how all the aspects of the "election" were covered. she did a great job and never let up.

[davidgmills]

41. Right Now Not last November

They should be discussing the USCountVotes article, and response to criticisms of it, and I have yet to find someone who is.

They should be screaming 9 PhD's ....

[FloridaCrat]

49. Randi has been all over this election situation. Al Franken does not

get it. Today, he said, (I'm paraphrasing cause I was in the car)
"Did you see the latest poll - it says Bush has a 42% approval rating
related to handling of Iraq. WHERE were all these people on November
2?" I have, in the past, heard him say that Bush won the election fair
and square.

Randi lived through the stolen election of 2000 - she's most recently from
West Palm Beach, home of Madame Butterfly Ballot, right in our back yard.

Randi has been the single reason I did not go completely nuts during
that election, 9/11 and the last 7 years - listening her to my 1.5 hour
commute every day.

I spoke with her, at an event on 11/5/2004 - and we both could not
believe Bush did it to us again. Because we knew no better, we channeled
our energies and interests towards Bev Harris/BBV, that did not yield
the results we had hoped for. I honestly thought Kerry meant it when
he said he was ready (and asked for money) to support litigating the election.

Across the country, there are several fronts on the election fraud.
Randi supports and is actively talking about as many as she can deal
with understanding and having facts to report, i.e. John Conyers and
his effort and the Ohio groups.

In her defense, she is on the air 4 hours a day, 5 days - that's 20
hours a week. She depends on her listeners to point her to things she
might not have yet heard about. She's not all knowing and clairvoyant.
I recommend that you give her a call when there is something new
or breaking that you'd like her and her listeners to hear about. She's
great to talk to and is not egotistical at all about getting new info.

You will have to wait a little while though, she's going to be out for
a little while for a hysterectomy.

[Peace Patriot]

53. Al Franken is straight DNC. But Randi Rhodes, Mike Malloy and the...

...Majority Report are great. They hit electrion fraud very hard and consistently--and with just fabulous information over many months.

And I'm sure there was pressure to shut up--pressure from mainstream Democratic leadership, whose malfeasance on our national election system (letting BushCons get control of it) mystifies me to this day. (Are they suicidal? Secretly in love with tax cuts for the rich? Approve of BushCons invading the Middle East, but would just as soon Bush take the rap for it? Corrupt--in the electronic BushCon voting machine companies' pockets? Some combo of all these? The California thing adds to the mystery.)

We should be sending new info. to the sharper people at AAR--re: the UScountvotes.org report, and the Calif. situation (especially the Calif. Dems who support Diebold!). The fight for our democracy is a state by state fight over election reform. Keep the better people at AAR informed!