Here's the dead giveaway of the election fraud

[Must_B_Free]

the 11th hour turnaround

These things always start out with our guy winning in the exit polls then they results magically "turn around" late into the race.

There is a reason for that - you can't steal votes up front. You have to know how many to steal. If you don't steal enough, then you have to go back in and steal aggregiously. This is probably what happened with the Ohio small districts.

So you have to steal at about 60 - 80 results range. too early and you might do it wrong, too late and the numbers look too wrong.

[imaginary girl]

1. So was Kerry ahead in the vote count to begin with

Or just in the exit polls? What I'm thinking is that this might give a clue as to how the election was "fixed" (ie programming to skew the votes as their cast or changing the numbers in the databases).

[Must_B_Free]

2. changing the totals on the tabulator is infinitely easier

it's a sum of many many scams though, all to give every bit of advantage to Bush. But the deal sealer is compromising the tabulator from the internet and just moving votes from one candidate to the other.

yes, Kerry was the projected winner until about 5:00 PM when it changed for Bush. Same in 2000 - fla changed late in the game. Same in other races.

[tommcintyre]

53. the exit polls have a 1 to 2% error - historically most accurate

[jsamuel]

3. It is a good point, another give away is

Once Bush pulled ahead in a state, Kerry never gained any lead back. Bush just kept going up and up.

The only state that is an acception was New Mexico where Kerry gained to within 1000, then as CNN stated "the numbers suddenly CHANGED" and Bush was up by 11,000 instead. Funny how numbers can CHANGE like that, huh...

[checks-n-balances]

7. That's what I always noticed about the online polls I participated in

for the past few weeks. I'd be pumped to find the instant results showing Kerry overwhelmingly ahead, only to be behind in the final count. That was too fishy to me.

[Helga Scow Stern]

41. Anything is possible from the "bat cave"--must subpoena batphone records

this has got to be a criminal matter as much as anything. What a story it will make--as fascinating as Laci, Kobe, etc. How long can the media stay away?

[loudsue]

4. There have been reports about Rove stepping in when it was apparent

that Kerry was winning. It was, accordin to the article posted on DU, around 3:30 pm on Nov 2 (if I remember correctly), and Karen Hughes had gone over to tell bush and his family that Kerry was way ahead and winning. Karl Rove apparently got on the phone, and started calling different States, Counties and Precincts on his list, and told the news media to "hold off" on what they were reporting, and to report a bush win instead.

THAT

was when the election started turning. And that is when all these weird numbers started showing themselves.

Rove obviously had his operatives in certain areas, and wasn't about to let the chimp lose in the vote counts -- even if he had to make up votes out of thin air....which they obviously did.

:kick::kick:

[PeterPan]

5. it is just incredible

that given how many people must be involved in this that not a single one of them will have a fir of conscience and blow the whistle
or leave fringerprints somewhere
this will not go away

[tom_paine]

8. With electronic voting, only a Bushevik, backdoor codes, and a modem are

required.

And anyone who has seen the face of the Bushevik Sturmtruppen and the vengeance they wreak knows what they risk.

Finally, even if they did come forward, would Corporate tv pRAVDA REPORT IT?

hAVING LIVED THROUGH THE LAST 4 YEARS OF eMPIRE AND HAVing seen how easy it is to mislead and suppress our Clowning Clowns of Imperial Pravda, none of this is surprising in the least.

Amerika is now identicaly in "mission statement" from Commie China.

and our media could as easily serve there as here.

[Spiffarino]

12. I takes less than 90 seconds to change the outcome

...in a GEMS tabulator. All you need is access to the computer the app is running on, and Microsoft Access to open the tiny database it uses, change the numbers, close the file, then go on to the next tabulator. It wouldn't take very many people at all. Half-a-dozen maybe.

[yowzayowzayowza]

52. With the kind of money on the line in this election...

... letz just say an application could be built to perform the functions you describe automatically. It wouldn't require lotz of people; just one with plenty of time and the inside info.

[JudyM]

18. Soros should offer a reward for info! nt

[liberal_in_GA]

23. Now THAT is a good idea...

we need some whistleblowers to come forward and prove what we suspect.

[JudyM]

29. How to communicate with Soros? Or get Hollywood allies to put up reward?

[nolabels]

43. It has been surmised that it would not take many to do this

This is one reason computers are so important they save on labor, freeing us to do more necessary things,
like figure about how this fraud worked :kick:

[newyawker99]

47. Hi PeterPan!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[DELUSIONAL]

6. Rove steps in like this:

[jljamison]

30. do you have a reference for this ?

not that I doubt this, but I could use this in a spat I have going with a Freeper. He was whining that the kerry campaign called the networks to tell them to hold off declaring Ohio for Bush. if I could counter that Rove was doing the same thing, that'd for sure shut him up. Thanks

[Helga Scow Stern]

42. These election night stories mount evidence for a criminal prosecution.

The AntiPrez, KKKarl, and TeamStealAmerica are felony crooks who must be caught. Lynne Cheney told on Dick when she reported on a CNN interview yesterday or today how calm he was, just listening to his IPod, even though it had just been announced the AntiPrez was being defeated in a landslide. It is all on the record. They can try to hide, but they can't. Not with 55 million and counting eyes on them. And there is nothing this country loves more than catching crooks redhanded! Even the Repubs who were stupid enough, rather than cruel enough, to enthrone the AntiPrez, will delight in watching the show.

[maythebestmanwin]

9. Oh man

Look, they got the numbers to go their way.
We can't change that in 2004, but we can whup their butts in 2006

Look, I hate it when my team loses a game, but I don't give up on the team, and I don't give on the game.

Look Kerry lost. We've lost before, and always come back stronger.

We need to stop this silly obsession with vote counting. (Look, if there was any provable evidence, and I'm not talking about this exit poll nonsense, we'd be hearing it by now.) OK the media is not always on our side. But right up till election day, they reported every fact as soon as we knew it. They aren't robots. If there is some reporter sitting on a mountain of evidence he needs to get some cojones and come forward.

We can get mad, or get elected. You chose. I chose actual power over this pretend power (this cloud-cukoo land) that some people want to live in.

Get real. Your computer can't vote. Go talk to your neighbor, especially if this neighbor happens to be Republican. Don't hate this person, and don't call him stupid. Find out, as one person to another, why this actual human being voted for Bush. If you treat this person right, Maybe he'll want to know about what you believe.

That is how we are going to win the next election. By talking to people and building our grassroots support. This bitterness and diviseness and obsession on the electronics of little black boxes is alienated the very voters we need in 2006. ( note the date. The next battle starts in 2006, not 2008, and we could win this one big

[Spiffarino]

10. Since when is vote-counting a "silly obsession?"

I happen to want my vote to be counted correctly. It's the strongest way I have of making a difference in who gets elected. I can canvass and I can convince friends and neighbors to vote for my favorite candidate, but in the end it's my vote that really matters.

So, you think vote counting is silly obsession. If the tables were turned, how would you feel then?

Side question: Why do you keep cutting and pasting the same message into your posts?

[kristndem]

11. We did that already

As long as they can manipulate the machines, we don't stand a chance

[Bridget Burke]

20. So--you joined DU today just to tell us that vote counting is silly.

Grassroots support & all that other stuff is great.

But unless we get on this thing right now, the votes in 2006 won't matter, either. Problems with electronic voting have been discussed here for a couple of years.

[ollie3]

22. if we don't get paper trails in the next election....

....how on earth can you prevent even greater fraud the next time around? Or, even if you make the assumption that 2004 was not rigged, how do you prevent 2006 from being rigged? Before we get organized for anything else, we need to fix this. And it will take a lot of concerted work to end the paper-less machines for 2006+.

[Action Jackson]

38. Yup.

We must fight hard now in hope of changing the results for this year but also to fight for the next election. If we don't fix these machines now, we will never win another election ever. Period. And we must attack and fight against these machines now while the election is fresh in everyone's mind.

[txindy]

25. You'll get positive responses

to your proposals if you seek out the threads that are directed towards 2006 and 2008. This isn't one of them. Neither are any of the other 16 threads you've posted similar messages in. You're causing yourself angst for no reason. Many people have similar thoughts to yours, but they aren't on these threads.

Welcome to DU, by the way. :hi:

[Nordic]

27. dude, we ARE the media now! What's this bullshit about "they?"

"They", as far as people who would "tell us" things, well that's us now, pal.

You're not really depending on the corporate mass media anymore, I hope.

And let me ask you this: can you prove who you voted for?

Do you know your vote was counted?

Can you prove it?

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

32. Exit polls aren't silly

I've participated in 8 general elections. In six of them, exit polls were dead on. The only two that weren't were 2000 and 2004.

The two things these elections have in common are Carl Rove and voting machines.

Exit polls aren't silly, they're generally dead on accurate.

[WhoWantsToBeOccupied]

46. Discrediting exit polls and scaring media from calling states "too early"

(I'm hoping someone will give this its own thread, but I am a newbie. I can't even send a private message to anyone! All I can do is re-post and hope someone likes it.)

Since at least 2000, Reps have been bad-mouthing exit polls in the media. They have partially succeeded because the media repeatedly apologizes for exit polls' "inaccuracy." Until about 2000, exit polls were considered extremely reliable (even Fox analyst Dick Morris swears by exit polls to this day) because they were based on people who had just cast votes. They are considered reliable enough to detect fraud in other countries.

After the media "blew" its call on Florida in 2000 by "prematurely" and "inaccurately" awarding the state to Gore, the entire media committed to wait much longer and be much more cautious in 2004. If they had called Florida early on Nov 2, 2004, they would have declared Kerry the winner. Instead, they waited, ignored the clear exit poll data, and "avoided" making the "wrong" call. Instead, they were able to make the "right" call after receiving "solid" numbers. (They even somehow managed to muddle together official vote tallies with exit poll data to cover up how large the discrepancy was between official vote tallies and exit poll numbers. Had no one received the early exit poll data, we likely would not be discussing the possibility of election fraud right now.)

In 2004, the Reps attempted to make it harder for exit pollers to conduct exit polls. They also helped nudge the media to consolidate their exit polling so they would need to discredit just one set of "faulty" numbers. (After making exit polling somewhat harder to carry out in certain places, the Reps are now using this self-created reality to "explain" polls' "failure.")

Today, we learned that the GOP is trying to stop the media from carrying out any exit polls at all in the future. It's easier to steal elections when no one's keeping you honest.

If someone in the GOP is rigging elections and deciding on Election Day how many votes they need to steal, they would want to loosen the media up by first discrediting exit polling and slowing down the media from calling states on Election Day until they had added in their fraudulent votes. After several election cycles, the fraudulent votes would have repeatedly "discredited" the exit polls sufficiently that they could then push the media to eliminate all exit polling. They could blame it on, as they have tried to, a left-wing conspiracy to leak pro-Democratic poll numbers that supposedly (but completely falsely, according to historical data) encourage Dems to turn up in larger numbers and discourage Reps from going to the polls. (This is a real tinfoil hat conspiracy theory!)

You must hand it to whoever's driving the GOP "Get Out The (Fake) Vote" campaign. They've got a brilliant long-term plan, these Machiavellian bastards.

[newyawker99]

48. Hi WhoWantsToBeOccupied!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[dmac]

35. Whether you see

the "vote counting" as obsessive or not, the sad truth is if we do not fix this NOW, THIS YEAR, there won't be an '06,'08,'10 for the Dems, and it won't matter how many people you appeal to personally, kindly, or otherwise. Even if we have the best platform in the world, the best candidate to ever come along, and 70% of the country decides it is voting for the Dems, as long as our media continues to be complicit in schemes like this, and we keep machines with back doors and programming that can be easily manipulated - AND a Rep President, a Rep House, and a Rep Senate, nothing will ever change - except of course we will no longer be a Democracy. Fascism has never held much appeal for me and THAT my friend, is why we must be obsessive, persistent, unyielding, and steadfast in our resolve to see this through to the end.

[EST]

51. Here, we believe that the very essence of democracy

is a well deserved trust in the integrity of the system, the rule of law, and the assurance that our votes count and will be counted!

Your "facts" you quoted to support your opinion are so totally divorced from observed reality, I have to assume you are alien to this universe.

[TruthIsAll]

58. You: "This is how we are going to win." But you're a Bushbot, Mr. 31 posts

You have already...(clearing throat)...won..haven't you?

[Poor Richard Lex]

62. go back under your bridge

or freeperville or wherever you came from. Your post is thinly disguised RW propaganda. Too bad for you only conservatives are dumb enough to fall for drivel like this. Begone!

[Lilli]

13. Just to play devils advocate here

Couldnt the numbers bump up dramatically and legitimately, if a heavily Bush area was turned in and added to the totals?

I think the whole things is quite smelly, but it seems that a county with a large pocket of votes could be added for either candidate at any time and make things look irregular.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

19. Such a huge turnaround seems unlikely

I've watched (very blue) Portland numbers turn (pinkish purple) Oregon tallies around, but only when the candidates are already close, as in the 2002 governor's race, when Kulongoski (D) was slightly trailing Mannix (R). Kulongoski was barely saved by votes from Astoria (old Wobbly town) and Portland.

Another example was the Congressional race between David Wu (D) and Molly Bordinaro (R) in 1998. They ended up within 300 votes of each other.

However, the Senate candidate I worked for in 2002 was going down 2 to 1 in the rural areas before the city votes came in, and the city votes barely made a dent.

I'm only semi-literate mathematically, but years of watching election returns with a mathematician taught me that there's a certain point at which a candidates or ballot measures are hopelessly behind and could never catch up unless 100% of the subsequent votes went their way--which never happens.

[Lilli]

31. ahhh thanks for that...makes sense n/t

[On the Road]

39. Yes, That's True, But

it's questionable whether the influx of Republican votes was real. Some of the turnout was astronomical -- over 80%. In a nation averaging 50%, that's an anomaly.

I think the first place to focus is on making sure that if there were 10,000 votes in a precint, that 10,000 people showed up at the polls. Some of the articles suggest that there were more votes counted than voters at the polls.

[hexola]

14. Isn't a more plausible explanation...

that Kerry voters were more likely to vote early in the day...

I voted before 10 am...of course Kerry won my state...so hard me to say about anyone else...

I just dont think getting obsesed with the Fraud deal is going to serve us very well...

Lots of wheel spinning and horn tooting on DU these days...

We can go crazy with this for sure...my favorite tin foil theory...When Bush summoned the reporters to the WHite House on election eve...for WHAT!!!! - To talk about Barney?...What was that???...Peter Jennings was freaking out...you could tell he didn't want it to air...but then they got the tape...and you could tell he was trying not to laugh...so they showed it...BUT what the HELL was that?...I think it was "the signal" - not sure of what...it was a pretty wierd moment, television-wise.

[Lilli]

15. I dont know who it was...but one of the talking heads

said that Reps traditionally voted later in the day...

Doesn't make it accurate, :) but I did hear it said

[chelaque liberal]

16. Of course. Reps all hard at work during the day,

welfare loving Dems sit around all day with nothing better to do.

Bull....

[txindy]

26. Oh, I believe they said that

They are trying to rationalize anything and everything in the way of discrepancies in the vote that they can. I'll bet that no republicans voted well after midnight, though, as many folks in Ohio did. ;)

Next thing we know, the talking heads will also claim that republicans vote earlier in the morning because they're more motivated. Then they'll say they are willing to wait in longer lines.

Before we know it, they'll be insisting Saddam had, and still has, WMD. Wait.... Nah, that'll NEVER happen. They're too smart to believe that line. ;)

[Lilli]

33. LMAO

exactly

[mountainvue]

21. So you want us to believe

the middle class voted before 5pm?

[hexola]

34. Perhaps the majority did...

Picture a non-union blue collar welding shop with three shifts.

Shift 1 : 6am-2pm

These guys will vote in the mid to late afternoon - after work.

Shift 2: 2pm-10pm

These guys might vote on their way to work...maybe the first ones of their demographic in. Early Afternoon..maybe even a few late morning

Shift 3 : 10pm - 6am

These guys probably come home and take a nap..and then vote in the mid-late afternoon...maybe even wait until the last minute. I'd say the minority of them would stop and vote on the way home.

But it's clear most blue collar shift-type workers would be voting in incresing numbers as we reached early afternoon.

More affluent Kerry folks might have the luxury of taking a half-day to vote in the morning. At-home-Mom Kerry voters could make it in early...College students might be early Kerry voters. But once the rush of super-motivated Kerry voters is over...we start getting killed.

[althecat]

17. Excellent... hence the need for the full exit poll data to be located...

Cheers Must_B.Free

[txindy]

24. Luckily for us, they did it too late and the numbers reflect that

[vanboggie]

28. And they want them discredited and gone

I take the GOP discrediting exit polling and calling for an end to them as proof of what the Rove minions did. Exit polls are why Florida was originally (and correctly) called for Gore in 2000 and why things were looking good for Kerry this time around. Exit polls help shine a light on the tampering, so they want them eliminated.

The controlled media made me sick when they pounced right on to the "what's wrong with exit polls" bandwagon.

Crooked thieving SOB's.

[newyawker99]

49. Hi vanboggie!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[vanboggie]

50. Thanks for the welcome, bummer though....

I just found my cigarettes and coffee on the Repug boycott list. Like my nerves weren't already shot!

[FlaGranny]

36. Remember the net gain in votes

early on the morning of 11/3 when the votes from the West Coast started coming in? - When everyone expected the margin to narrow in favor of Kerry then.

I sat there for several hours watching that in disbelief.

[librechik]

37. Read this post!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x37033

[Generator]

40. I guess you haven't heard

that Democrats are lazy bums with NOTHING to do but vote and vote early. They don't have jobs, and clearly were wildly MAD in love with their candidate. The rushed to the exit poll takers, screaming their mad, mad, love for Kerry.

Meanwhile, those sneaky and ashamed Republicans who actually WORK for a living didn't care to talk to these poll takers. Afterall, the liberal media can't be trusted.

Or maybe the DEMS just lied. I mean nobody liked Kerry, but they were too ashamed to say so.

Bush love rules the day. Amazing-we were fools to believe that those lines around the block in the rain were to vote against Bush, when, afterall it was Christian passsion that took them by force and made them rush to vote for their emperor in chief, all the while, being so quiet that nobody knew the love that dare not speak it's name.

Bush love won out over Kerry love. It's plain to see.

[WhoWantsToBeOccupied]

44. Discrediting exit polls and scaring media from calling states "too early"

Since at least 2000, Reps have been bad-mouthing exit polls in the media. They have partially succeeded because the media repeatedly apologizes for exit polls' "inaccuracy." Until about 2000, exit polls were considered extremely reliable (even Fox analyst Dick Morris swears by exit polls to this day) because they were based on people who had just cast votes. They are considered reliable enough to detect fraud in other countries.

After the media "blew" its call on Florida in 2000 by "prematurely" and "inaccurately" awarding the state to Gore, the entire media committed to wait much longer and be much more cautious in 2004. If they had called Florida early on Nov 2, 2004, they would have declared Kerry the winner. Instead, they waited, ignored the clear exit poll data, and "avoided" making the "wrong" call. Instead, they were able to make the "right" call after receiving "solid" numbers. (They even somehow managed to muddle together official vote tallies with exit poll data to cover up how large the discrepancy was between official vote tallies and exit poll numbers. Had no one received the early exit poll data, we likely would not be discussing the possibility of election fraud right now.)

In 2004, the Reps attempted to make it harder for exit pollers to conduct exit polls. They also helped nudge the media to consolidate their exit polling so they would need to discredit just one set of "faulty" numbers. (After making exit polling somewhat harder to carry out in certain places, the Reps are now using this self-created reality to "explain" polls' "failure.")

Today, we learned that the GOP is trying to stop the media from carrying out any exit polls at all in the future. It's easier to steal elections when no one's keeping you honest.

If someone in the GOP is rigging elections and deciding on Election Day how many votes they need to steal, they would want to loosen the media up by first discrediting exit polling and slowing down the media from calling states on Election Day until they had added in their fraudulent votes. After several election cycles, the fraudulent votes would have repeatedly "discredited" the exit polls sufficiently that they could then push the media to eliminate all exit polling. They could blame it on, as they have tried to, a left-wing conspiracy to leak pro-Democratic poll numbers that supposedly (but completely falsely, according to historical data) encourage Dems to turn up in larger numbers and discourage Reps from going to the polls. (This is a real tinfoil hat conspiracy theory!)

You must hand it to whoever's driving the GOP "Get Out The (Fake) Vote" campaign. They've got a brilliant long-term plan, these Machiavellian bastards.

[sharman]

59. The 2000 exit poll

The 2000 Florida exit poll was accurate, but not for the reason you are thinking.

The networks called Florida for Gore very early, because the exit polls showed a very strong lead. Gore did not have a huge lead in Florida. The poll was initially wrong because bad data was fed into the computer, human error. This error was obvious and quickly discovered. So, once you eliminate the obvious mistake, the 2000 exit poll was as accurate as any before it. The art and science of the exit poll was as validated in 2000 as the earlier elections.

Btw, Gore's actual lead in Florida was around 50,000 - 60,000, IMO. 1%. That is based on a net 50,000 being lost to the extraordinary amount of overvote spoilage (source: WashPost analysis) as well as the 6,000 lost to Buchanan with the butterfly ballot

[ewulf]

61. But there are limits?

The notion of discrediting exit polls seems a little difficult given their base mathematical simplicity: you just take a sampling of a set, the larger the sampling, the more acurate ones representation. Its simple, irrefutable statistics; the fractional error goes as the inverse of the square root of the number of samples. The size of the overall population you are sampling from is irrelivant. How can one challenge this, and how can the media buy into this challenge?

If the Repugs are attempting to disprove poisson statistics, I think their bighting off a little more than even they can chew. All they can really challenge is the secondary analyses, what was done with the raw data after the fact, but they can't challenge the raw data. If we had the original, NEP survey results, that would be something.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[truehawk]

54. kick

[tommcintyre]

55. "too late" That's why the Bush pop vote is glaringly too large?

I think they hit the panic button becuz the early exit poll margins were so large. This may be their evntual undoing. It's like a "D" student suddenly getting 100% on the final. It tends to draw scrutiny.

[seaclyr]

56. Perhaps early panic, big "shift" to Bush, then backed off

They knew early on that the exit polls looked bad and knew they needed a big shift in the vote count not only to throw doubt on the exit polls but to dupe the media into holding off calling the election for Kerry. We heard from the networks on election night that the Republicans said "they were polling 3-4 percentage points above the exit polls." The next day I remember reading on Salon.com (or Slate? - I'm not sure) that the Republicans had insisted to the media at some point in election day that they (the Republicans) had different numbers and should hold off. What were their different numbers? - had to be the vote count, they weren't doing their own exit polls. And, true to expectation, early popular vote counts reported by CNN were strongly (suspiciously so?) in Bush's favor: Michael Keefer says that at 8:50 pm Bush had a massive 11 percent margin (6,590,476 to Kerry's 5,239,414). So it's likely there was indeed a very large early "adjustment" to the vote count. Keefer suggests they backed off on "Democrat-delete" later, so that the difference between exit polls and vote counts wasn't too suspicious. And of course exit polls later were changed early Wednesday morning to agree with vote counts. See http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KEE411.html for the details. It may be of course that after they had backed off, they still couldn't be absolutely certain of winning Ohio and had to resort to last-minute contingency plans to alter the vote in cruder ways.

[Carolab]

57. egregiously

sorry

[ever_green]

60. Makes sense to me