2004 - Red is Redder, Blue is Bluer

[mcd1982]

I was looking at www.electoral-vote.com and comparing the 2000 to 2004 vote percentages. In most cases the Bush states were even redder than in 2000, and only a handful of the Blue states became bluer (probably the Nader vote went Democratic).

Anyone have a guess as to why this is? Does it foretell anything for the 2008 and beyond presidential races?

On edit: The North East Blue states turned less blue, the rest of the Blue States became bluer -- 9/11 effect in the Northeast?

[RC]

1. Electronic voting Machines

Election fraud, to name two reasons.

[mcd1982]

3. hmm...

could that really be the reason? It seems too "conspiracy theory" to me -- could the partisan split just be getting wider? or do the red states just not tolerate a NE liberal (This Southernor for one will vote for a NE liberal -- and did -- but most)? i really am curious about this...

[BeFree]

6. Steal the vote?

A conspiracy? No way Jose?

Yes, way.

Look, they stole the vote in 2000, what makes you think they weren't even bolder this time? When one really examines the evidence, one comes to the conclusion they were very, very bold in 2004. Of course, if you don't want to look at the evidence.......

[mcd1982]

7. Obviously...

I'm asking b/c I want to know. But I don't want half-baked theories.

I don't believe they (as in the Republicans themselves) stole votes in 2000 -- but the Supreme Court was unorthodox in their ruling in Gore vs. Bush.

How exactly did they steal votes in 2004?

On edit: I love how DU members assume you are ignorant or just "don't want to see the light" b/c you question one of thier theories or don't take everything they say at face value. I would say I'm a liberal first, and a Democrat second b/c I don't take everything at face value -- I question everything and believe the world is not so black and white -- but has varying shades of grey.

[BeFree]

9. You "question everything?"

So, you've really questioned the way the election was run, but think it too much a conspiracy? Really?

Have you been reading up on computerized voting for two years?

Have you read thousands of threads on DU about the stolen vote?

It's ok to be ignorant about election fraud. It's why some of us here question everything we read in this forum, your words included.

Welcome to DU!

[mcd1982]

11. Actually...

you are correct. I have not been on DU for a long while.

I worked for Congressman Max Sandlin (he was the last Chief Deputy Whip for the Dems -- lost to reredistricting in Texas) and was so busy with his campaign that I never got a chance to read DU much since about the summer of 2004. Then, after the election, it stung so bad I am only now getting back to politics -- from reading political books, watching West Wing, watching/reading political news! I had to take a sabatical b/c politics consumed my life from the redistricting trials in 2003 all the way to November 2004 -- I just needed a break!

So, I would be interested in see all of the evidence. I've heard of the minority precincts being "out of ballots" but that's about all I've heard of.

I hadn't followed computerized voting much, b/c where I lived had scantron-type voting.

[BeFree]

12. scantron?

I take that to be a paper ballot scanned with an optical scanner?

Like I said, welcome to DU, welcome home.

If you have the time, dig into the archives here. But carry a bunch of kleenexes because you will be crying before long, when you see how they rigged the vote.

There is another thread here tonight with a link to a votersunite pdf. It is only 14 pages long, and I'm sure will give you a decent background to what we've been talking about for a year now.

[mcd1982]

14. scantron

that's the testing forms we used in HS & college -- the voting is not actually with a scantron form, but the method is the same -- you bubble in the "answer"/"Candidate" with a pencil.

[Wilms]

13. Perfect. A fresh perspective.

Poke around DU.

Look at the work of TIA and Berniew1, among others.

You'll come across compilation threads of interesting articles.

Then, let us know what your impression is.

Many here are sure there was stolen votes via DRE's and Tabulators (suppression, another story).

I think they played with tallies even in decidedly blue or red states to help pad the margin and give the town-drunk a "mandate".

[kster]

15. A good place

to start learning how they were about steal the election,this article from Feb,2004. http://www.jhu.edu/~jhumag/0204web/vote.html

[BeFree]

16. Thanks kster

From that link, a quote:
He adds, "I don't think anyone who was involved in the writing of this code had any notion of good software practices or any understanding of security whatsoever."


Even after all I've read, that was one article that I'd only heard bits and pieces from. It is now bookmarked, thanks.

Reading it was a trip down memory lane for me. I was reading DU when Bev came on with her 'conspiracy' theories, two years ago. I believed in her work and followed tons of links. With that education under my belt, I can look anyone in the eye and say: "The election was stolen", and, if they are interested, I can fairly elucidate the rest of the story.

And yet, the election was stolen, damnit. Well, that's the last one stolen, right?

[Goldeneye]

10. If you don't think disenfranchising African

American voters is cheating/illegal/wrong...then maybe you can claim the republicans won legitemately in 2000. I wouldn't bet on it, because if you're willing to illegally disenfranchise voters, you're probably willing to cheat in other ways to. As for this year, I'd be curious to hear what you've read regarding the election. There is little doubt in my mind that it was stolen. I can give you a list of links to look through if you'd like, you don't have to take my word for it and you can be as objective as you want. The world isn't black and white, but don't let that stop you from questioning these criminals. After all dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=122&row=1
This is an article by Greg Palast about Floridas voter purges.

As for why the red states are getting redder, I would say there was obviously more to it than election fraud. I'd say it has a lot to do with misinformation, and less critical thinking.

[Enquiringkitty]

2. It is amazing how people around here are becoming more and

more polarized. People who were pretty apathetic before, now are choosing sides. I think that 2008 will see an even larger number of people voting yet still have a decisive 50/50 divide. That means that the electoral college will make the final decision again.

[mcd1982]

4. if the electoral college...

again makes the decision, heaven help us all...it's stacked against the Democrats...

[BeFree]

8. Electoral college

If just 50,000 votes had turned up different in Ohio, Kerry would be sitting in the White House today.

Ya see, Kerry would have won the electoral college but not the popular vote.

In 2000, Gore won the popular vote but lost in the electoral college.
Of course both elections were stolen and the Dem candidate won both times.

[Gyre]

5. Repubes are going to have to FU big-time!

And make such a mess that: 1) they aren't motivated to steal the election again and, 2) it can't be covered up by the boot-licking major media corporations.

The only question is whether they'll put their foot in it sooner, or later.

Gyre

[rigel99]

17. GREAT THREAD

here's a graphic of Georgia's RED/BLUE SHIFTS...
found very problematic things.... anybody have any commments on the following:

1. Dekalb and Fulton (with a statewide 18.44% increase in voter turnout) did not
change more than 1% each county in their voting totals... I FIND THIS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE when you
consider the increase in voters

2. I find it hard to believe that only 11 Counties increased their democratic percentages while 148 counties
increased their republican percentages.

3. I also find it VERY VERY Hard to believe that 12 counties moved from 7% win/loss differential to
solidly RED meaning more than 7%... while the Blue shifting from Orange to Blue was 0 counties.
You mean to tell me 0 counties that were on the borderline all voted Bush? and 12 counties that were
at risk went blue... or, a little under 10% of all GA counties went Bush?
http://www.countpaperballots.com/Audit/2004ElectionAudit400.htm

[seaclyr]

18. I'm not convinced the "Red is Redder" pattern is a real one.

The red that went redder, with a handful of exceptions, had vote count - exit poll skews that were significant and, if exit polls were reasonably accurate as most of us here believe, which would wipe out any additional "redness" relative to 2000. The only clear exceptions seem to me to be TX, TN, OK, KY and KS. My own analysis of this suggests that - relative to 2000 - the pattern is about half the states went redder (or less blue) and the other half were more-or-less neutral based on the vote counts. However, because I don't trust the vote counts I really wonder whether the pattern reflects a successfully implemented, well orchestrated plan that on the one hand, advanced Bush and, on the other, held back Kerry.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=329549