"What Didn't Happen in Ohio" This article DEMANDS a response!

[Amaryllis]

Okay, you guys, haul out those emails you sent on the Koehler issue, revise them a bit, and let's educuate this guy! He calls himself an investigative journalist. Apparently a 102 page report from the Minority House Judiciary Committee means nothing.

What Didn't Happen In Ohio
Russ Baker
May 05, 2005

Russ Baker —an investigative reporter and essayist—is a longtime TomPaine.com contributor. He is involved in the development of a new not-for-profit organization dedicated to revitalizing investigative journalism in America. To read more about the problems in the 2004 presidential election and proposals for reforming our electoral system, see Best Of TomPaine: Election Irregularities In 2004.

Back in January, I wrote a piece for TomPaine.com questioning widely circulated claims that the election in Ohio had been stolen. I had done some poking around, anticipating that at least some of the frightening anecdotes filling our mail boxes and raging on talk radio would be borne out. They weren’t. In spot checks on a few popular fraud anecdotes, I found credible alternative explanations such as incompetence, structural problems, politicization of decision-making and other failings— but no evidence of deliberate fraud designed to hand the election to Bush.

I looked especially closely at the theory that fraud is the only way to explain the large gap between the early exit polls, which showed Kerry doing very well, and the final result giving Ohio’s key electoral votes to Bush. According to this theory, there was no way the actual tally could vary so greatly from the exit polls. The proponents of this view essentially accuse the legendary exit pollster Warren Mitofsky, and a media consortium, the National Election Pool (NEP), of some kind of complicity— or at least willful denial. I found no evidence whatever of either.

For casting doubt on the conspiracy theory, TomPaine.com and I received virtual barrels of e-mail, most from angry anti-Bush activists who could not believe that their hard work had been for naught. I also heard from Steven Freeman, a University of Pennsylvania professor and author of a widely cited study that served as the primary basis for the pro-theft-theory folks, The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy . His remarks, and my response to them, appeared on TomPaine.com.

Privately, I heard from many Democratic officials, election reform advocates and analysts from inside Ohio and elsewhere, who believed my reporting to be accurate, and who were more than a little perturbed by the frenzy, which they found a counterproductive distraction from the serious ongoing effort to reform election practices. Since the debate refuses to die, this seems a good time to trumpet the arrival of not just one, but two, new technical analyses that cast further doubt upon the conspiracy theories out there. The author of the first is an earnest young fellow in San Diego named Rick Brady.

http://www.tompaine.com/20050505/articles/what_didnt_happen_in_ohio.php

[slor]

1. Posting to read later. n/t

[the phantom shouting]

2. My Response

Sir,

If "what we experienced was probably an amalgam of system failings, miscalculations, incompetence, and, in some cases, the variably successful exertions of biased election officials", why did nearly all of the "system failings, miscalculations, incompetence, and, in some cases, the variably successful exertions of biased election officials" favor George W. Bush?

Just wondering,
J. Riley

[Amaryllis]

5. Great response!

[On the Road]

3. This is Why the Arguments Have to be Vetted

and pursued in the most scientific manner possible. I have heard so many conflicting claims that I really don't know what to believe any more.

For example, claims about whether exit poll discrepancies varied by voting equipment are conflicting and usually made on a broad-brush basis where it's very difficult to tell what the facts are. Like a lot of variables, voting equipment is confounded with geography, population, and sometimes partisanship, and these thing need to be adjusted for before making any claims. Elizabeth's Liddle's curve also has to be taken into account. Only then will the remaining anomalies pop out and be taken seriously.

It also relates to real-world feasibility. The "massive, widespread fraud" scenarios have been so carelessly drawn up that it's impossible to tell whether any of them were really feasible in practice or whether have immediately been detected by normal vote-reporting procedures.

Just my opinion. It makes getting to the bottom of a complex issue like much more difficult than it needs to be.

[Demit]

4. I just emailed Russ Baker begging him to tell me this is satire

It's so ridiculous, like the dismissal of the professors who have degrees in statistics and math by calling these "general skills", and the approval of the analysis of an "earnest young fellow" whose qualifications include being "deeply involved" in grad level statistics while getting his masters in something else, and "the best qualifications—an agile and open mind".

The piece is such a classic: propping up your experts, allowing them to comment on opposing experts you want refuted, but not with any facts... goofy unsupported unexplained conclusions... I've read Russ Baker before, and never was he this bad, never.

Baker is involved in the development of a new not-for-profit organization dedicated to revitalizing investigative journalism in America. I think--I HOPE--this essay is intended for teaching purposes, as in all the things NOT to do in journalism. It's just so blatant.

[Cocoa]

6. my response is that he's right on

especially his concluding paragraph.

Until the public becomes confident in the underlying integrity of the electoral apparatus in this country, none of the urgently needed improvements to that system can take place. That’s why the conspiracy-mongering must cease. Can we instead please turn now to the many substantive proposals already being proffered to make things better—including pending legislation? Let’s keep our eye on the real ball that’s in our court.


And I would add that I've suspected for a long time that some of the "activism" is actually intended to deliberately create and nourish unwarranted distrust in the system for malicious reasons.

[John Q. Citizen]

26. I'm sure that standing in line for 8 hours to end up casting a

provisional ballot that got tossed is a great start to rebuilding faith in the system.

Funny he never mentined that.

[Cocoa]

27. he does, actually...

in this line: "Can we instead please turn now to the many substantive proposals already being proffered to make things better—including pending legislation?"


The pending legislation does address the things you mention, and more. Those important things like provisional ballots and long lines, and other REAL issues are the things that the various proposed legislation addresses, and which a certain group of "activists" ignores. And those same activists are also working AGAINST this proposed legislation.

So in a way, this author is making your very point for you.

[Blue Shark]

7. My reply...

...Your article begs the question:

...Why the farcical recount?

[kster]

8. Full investigation with "subpoena power"

then we can find out if his "Democratic officials, election reform advocates and analysts from inside Ohio and elsewhere, who believed my reporting to be accurate" are right. Then we can move on to reform until then (not going to go away).

[melissinha]

9. what about the lack of machines?

What these fools NEVER acknowledge or barely attempt to refute is the true fact that there were THOUSANDS of affidavits submitted and complaints that clearly indicate that urban precincts that were clearly slated as Democratic precincts had less machines than suburban and typically Republican precints in the same counties.... This indicates a clear suppression of voting rights that falls squarely on the shoulders of Blackwell.

These are facts and trends that cannot be ignored.... Essentially these biased "reporters" are saying the good people of Ohio are liars??? What is their answer to that????

[Amaryllis]

23. LIars or delusional.

[Febble]

29. What did happen in Ohio...

or at least in Columbus, was the subject of my study here:

http://electionarchive.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=65&Itemid=63

The effect of voter suppression was massive.

[SmileMaker]

10. Article is not there, was it removed? n/t

[Amaryllis]

11. The link is not working. It was working earlier. I checked it after

posting. THeir other election link isn't working presently either.

[tritsofme]

12. Link here:

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/what_didnt_happen_in_ohio.php

[autorank]

13. Who the "F" is Russ Baker. Lots of "debunkers" emerging lately herre

on DU. If you know what I'm sayin'

[kster]

15. probably because these

are gonna be within the MOE.

ROH (165 posts) Fri May-06-05 02:28 AM
Response to Original message

11. The exit poll shown by the BBC before any results were announced was:


Labour ......... 37%
Conservative ... 33%
Liberal Dems ... 22%
Others .......... 8%

We can compare those exit poll percentages with the final results when they are known

[autorank]

19. Hey, I like you. I'll watch for it. Maybe you can educate certain people

Ya know, give 'em some knowledge, which i hear is power. Then we can have a useless debate on "what the meaning of 'is' is?"
Kster:yourock:

[Febble]

30. They've got it right since

1992. Do you know why?

Because in 1992 they got it disastrously wrong, and predicted a hung parliament with a Labour majority, and the Tories won with a working absolute majority. The pre-election polls had also predicted a Labour win.

The answer was deemed to be "reluctant Tory voters". It was pointed out that the same thing happened in the US in 1992. So now all polls in the UK factor in reluctant Tory voters.

As a result, they mostly get it right.

[Sawyer]

32. Do you have a link to something that

would discuss this "reluctant Tory voters" effect in 1992 and before?

[GettysbergII]

14. Gatekeeper

http://www.leftgatekeepers.com/chart.htm

[autorank]

20. GettysbergII. Love the link.

I think the author of that deserves one of those "McCarther Genius Grants"

[Amaryllis]

24. That certainly explains a few things.

[Senator]

16. Nomination for Most Orwellian Sentence of the Week >>

Until the public becomes confident in the underlying integrity of the electoral apparatus in this country, none of the urgently needed improvements to that system can take place. -- Russ Baker

Talk about havin' it bass ackwards.

---

[Amaryllis]

21. unbelievable. an entire sentence that is an oxymoron!

[FogerRox]

31. Right on-Senator--or maybe head up the arse backwards

[Peace Patriot]

34. Hear, hear, Senator! The good George is rolling over in his...

...grave!

The truth (as opposed to Orwell-speak):

Until the public becomes aware of the underlying insecurity, extreme hackability and utter lack of integrity of the electoral apparatus in this country, none of the urgently needed improvements to that system can take place, and Bush Cartelists will just go on stealing elections into the indefinite future.

----

It just occurred to me that Russ Baker may have intended a subtext to his nonsensical assertion that the public will not support election reform until they become confident that it isn't needed--and the subtext might go something like this:

ACTUAL TEXT:

"Until the public becomes confident in the underlying integrity of the electoral apparatus in this country..."

SUBTEXT:

Until the public stops being agitated by gnawing suspicions that the Bush Cartel might have stolen another election, and stops having their gnawing suspicions confirmed by a growing mountain of evidence,...

ACTUAL TEXT:

"...none of the urgently needed improvements to that system can take place."

SUBTEXT:

...none of the urgently needed improvements to that system, such as federalization of elections under Bush Cartel control--as about to be proposed by the James Baker-controlled private, phony "National Election Reform Commission"--giving us total control of U.S. elections forevermore, and ending real election reform at the state/local level, can take place, because nobody but nobody is going to trust James Baker to "reform" elections as long as people think we stole it. Thus, this column, as commissioned by Mr. Baker, to create public confidence that they really did vote for torturing prisoners, slaughtering Arabs, looting Social Security, invading Iran and North Korea, and destroying women's rights, all of 20th Century social progress, the Constitution, the separation of church and state, and the Bill of Rights. If they gain confidence that they did vote for these things, then they will have confidence in James Baker on election "reform" (heh-heh).

[smartvoter]

17. done. nt

[Carolab]

18. Russ Baker contributes to The Nation and has written on the election

He wrote about the New Hampshire "recount", for example.

I never felt that Russ quite "got it".

It seems unimaginable to me that the same periodical that publishes Russ also published THIS seminal piece by Ronnie Dugger:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040816&s=dugger

I suggest that we ask Russ to read it.

Then I suggest we write to David Corn, editor of The Nation, and ask him what gives with their magazine and the lack of responsible reporting on the evidence of the theft of Election 2004 and the obvious fact that the problems that Ronnie Dugger warned of in The Nation actually occurred.

Here is a link to a page of Election 2004 articles from The Nation, written by Russ, David and Ronnie:

http://www.thenation.com/directory/view.mhtml?t=00080602

[Amaryllis]

22. The Ronnie Dugger article was the one that changed my life forever when

I read it last summer, and grasped the full implications of what was happening. I started going to the websites he mentioned and the more I learned, the more freaked out I got.

[Carolab]

25. Ronnie was dead on target.

Sadly. How could this have happened?

[Joe Chi Minh]

28. Amaryllis, why rebut Mr Brady's case,

when he, himself, has rebutted it in such a masterful way, through the good offices of one of the very individuals he irrationally cited in support of his case. Namely, Elizabeth Liddle, whose otherwise cogent summary only questions the validity of the accusations of fraud in relation to the exit-poll shenanigans. Indeed these are her very words, as perversely introduced by Brady:

"The other study comes from Elizabeth Liddle, a U.K.-based former USCV contributor and Ph.D. candidate in psychology/cognitive neuroscience who published her own independent study, which demonstrates fundamental problems with the fraudniks’ conclusions.

She begins by acknowledging her own concerns with the situation in Ohio. “I believe your election was inexcusably riggable and may well have been rigged,” writes Liddle. “It was also inexcusably unauditable. I am convinced that there was real and massive voter suppression in Ohio, and that it was probably deliberate. I think the recount in Ohio was a sham, and the subversion of the recount is in itself suggestive of coverup of fraud. I think Kenneth Blackwell should be jailed. However (and I'll come clean now in case you want to read no further) I don't believe the exit polls in themselves are evidence for fraud. I don't think they are inconsistent with fraud, but I don't think they support it either.”

Nuff said. A more concise and damning overview of what occurred in Ohio, and that, as more than suggestive of massive and widespread fraud and intimidation, is difficult to imagine. Only a Republican could shoot himself in the foot with such pin-point accuracy and believe he'd shot someone else's.

[Joe Chi Minh]

33. I think maybe I should

have referred to him as "young master Brady", and suggested he show Mr Baker's glowing testimonial to his tutor.

An agile mind in deed! contriving to assert and rebut at the same time. That must take some kind of mental gymnastics, mustn't it!

[galloglas]

35. Is Dueling Still Permitted? Because I'm Calling Wycliff Out.

(A copy of an email to Don Wycliff of the Chicago Tribune, currently masquerading as a "public editor").

"If George Bush and the National Republican Party and all the other folks who had the most to gain by Wycliff's spiking Robert Koehler's story had been responsible for this *singular* omission, I would get interested. But when the people with the most at stake in publicly delivering the news don't step up, I'm suspicious."

Cuts both ways, doesn't it, Mr. Wycliff?

There is complicity, indeed, it seems. It really seems a question of how many parties are involved, no?

So, if Robert Koehler's pieces are to be given the the air, then perhaps you should cover some real news? Here's a tip.

A Presidential candidate, whom I voted for in 2004, has either sequestered, or absconded with, some $40 million dollars meant to make sure my vote was counted.

You've covered Kenny Lay, so why not John Kerry?

I demand satisfaction. Consider yourself challenged.

Philip M. Lindsey

[Sawyer]

36. Um - I believe John Kerry returned most of the $40M

to the DNC, and is slowly feeding the rest of it back in as well. There is no "absconding" there.

[Amaryllis]

37. He also gave a bunch to gregoire for the WA recount.

[galloglas]

38. Amaryllis and All

I don't want to pick a fight with or over Kerry.

I *do* want to pick a fight with WyCliff over Koehler. When Koehler outed the truth, Wycliff picked him off. Then, in MSM shoulder to shoulder solidarity, old hands like Russ Baker pile on.

If you think Koehler is correct, then back him. If not, say so. But if Bob Koehler now knows what most of us now do, we have to accept the facts... or delude ourselves... don't we?

And if the hierarchy of the Democratic Party did not understand that the election *might* have been stolen on 11-3-2005, then they are too dense to vote for (IMHO).

Gore fought in 2000. The country is better for it (IMHO). We are worse for Bush being in, so how did it happen??

1) The Dems actually thought they were outRoved at 5:00 AM? After being comfortably ahead at 12:23AM?

2) If so, who gave Kerry (or anyone else) leave to break the promise he made to all of his supporters to make sure each vote was counted? I didn't!

So, why nitpick on little things when the point was too call out a MSM stooge when a reporter cut too close to the bone? No, I don't think Kerry absconded (though the stooge has to accept the challenge, as stated... which was the purpose).

But, on the otherhand, some money going back to the DNC or to Gregoire is *not* what we were promised. We were promised a fighter "reporting for duty".
IMHO, *all* should be given to proper Dem causes (electoral reform tops the list for me). Anything held back in a war chest for a 2008 Kerry run would be ill-gotten goods. We should *all* have a fresh start at that point.

Hopefully we are not so hidebound that we cannot use *rhetoric* on those (Wycliff) who attack our own survival as a party by denigrating charges of election fraud?
I had thought it was the GOP that coined the 11th Commandment "Speak no ill of a fellow Republican (even rhetorically)". I'd hoped we'd not fallen that far.