Middle Finger Bush
(108 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-10-04 06:38 PM
Original message |
|
I remember on election night a trend which caught my eye on both the Florida vote and the National vote was Bush's early and incredibly consistant lead.
With very few precincts reported, Bush leapt ahead with a 300k lead in Florida and a 3mil lead for the US. It was uncanny how from about 10% to 90% reporting that this incremental lead stayed almost exactly consistent.
I can't really understand how this would be possible.
|
Stevious
(212 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-10-04 06:41 PM
Response to Original message |
Middle Finger Bush
(108 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-10-04 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. how would that create a Bush lead? |
|
and aren't they reported by precinct, not necessarily chronologically?
|
SmallFatCat
(34 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-10-04 06:45 PM
Response to Original message |
|
That would suggest to me that the early reporting precincts contained almost all the "majority".
Surely early/late voting doesn't come into this, as this is the precinct reporting the whole days results.
|
papau
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-10-04 06:54 PM
Response to Original message |
4. late reporting equates to reporting the changes that allow Bush to "win" |
|
There were negative votes flying about as the numbers were changed!
Only the 25 million negative adjustment to increase Bush lead is known to have not been accepted as a legit correction by the state summary computers
it is best to steal in small bites!
:-)
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri May 03rd 2024, 10:56 PM
Response to Original message |