The Difference Between Us: Elections

[BeFree]

Here's the difference between Us and them.

We believe Dems won in 2000, 2002, and 2004.

They think the Dems were turned down by the voters in all of those *losses*.
They think Dems were losers.

We know better than to think the secret vote counts were the truth.

They continue to believe the secret counting was fair and square.

So here we are on the cusp of another election, and we know the same mechanisms that stole people's votes are still in place.

They think that by some magic our votes will be counted as cast.

We don't believe in magic.

They think Dems lost the last few elections.

We believe Dems actually won the past few elections.

[lumberjack_jeff]

1. Disagree

They think that by some magic our votes will be counted as cast.

I don't think they're counting on magic. They're somewhere between ambivalent and secretly supportive. Either they're pro business (in which case they have little problem having a business select our leaders) or they're fundies (in which case God is working his will through Wally O'Dell) or they're fans of authoritarianism (in which case democracy is overrated anyhow).

They don't really believe that voting machines work, they only know that they win - and they're okay with that.

[EFerrari]

3. I think you're right. Just as we saw with the mockumentary,

they know Bush is a loser and they're will to lie to make him look better.

They are fine with the fraud.

[Amaryllis]

20. Which mockumentary?

[BeFree]

17. Can't argue with that.

Believe me, I've tried to come up with an argument! Lol!

And that class of people who only want to win, regardless of how the game is played, are a problem. But you must agree, there are some people who have some extraordinary faith that their votes were counted as cast, right?

[OnTheOtherHand]

2. apparently I am neither "Us" nor "them"

I think Gore won the popular vote in 2000 and should have won the electoral vote. I think Dems probably lost in 2002 and 2004, although I don't see how anyone can be sure about (e.g.) Georgia in 2002 or Ohio in 2004. I sort of envy people who are sure, but I also distrust them.

I don't know anyone who assumes that "the secret counting was fair and square" or that the votes are bound to be counted correctly this time around.

The mathematics are pretty simple here. If Us is people who don't trust the machines, Us is a clear majority. If Us is people who are sure that the Dems won in 2002 and 2004, Us is no longer a clear majority. So, why do you seem to go out of your way to define Us in a narrow way? I don't think We can afford it.

[BeFree]

4. Apparently

You mean after all this time you still can't make up your mind?

Just because you don't know anyone who assumes the vote counting is not skewed doesn't mean there isn't anyone.

They think Dems are losers. We think Dems won. Pretty simple idea, but if you think Dems are losers.... well, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

[OnTheOtherHand]

5. it's not MY mind I'm confused about

and I'm not the only one confused, I guess, since every poster on this thread seems to have a slightly different understanding of who "they" are. Hey, whatever.

"They think Dems are losers. We think Dems won."

Well, I don't think Dems are losers, and I don't think Dems won. I will let you go back to talking with yourself now.

[BeFree]

6. You can't decide?

I almost feel sorry for someone who can't make up their mind. Almost.

[BeFree]

8. And I thoroughly distrust them.

[kster]

7. Yep, the Politicians got all of us

just where they want us, no one can prove beyond a reason of doubt that the election was or was not stolen, we can debate this for ever, but the fact that no one can prove beyond a reason of doubt, is proof enough for me that the Politicians, with the use of their secret vote counting machines, manipulate the vote count.

[BeFree]

9. Indeed

Yet we still must contend with people who think its all gonna be, and has been, fair and square. Then there are those who can't make up their minds.

It's evident that Nader was somewhat correct... there is a certain similarity 'twixt those in power - they don't want us electing our leaders, they want to have the choice to themselves, why else would they allow our votes to go into that black box?

The establishment shivers at the thought of a John Kerry as president. Even tho JK is establishment, he woulda ripped them a new one, and left the bad guys hanging out to dry - Dem or pub, wouldn't have mattered.

The debate in my mind is over. The people elected Dems overwhelmingly, but enough votes were stolen to keep the bad guys in power.

So, either you can't make up your mind, or you think Dems were ripped off, or your think Americans voted in the majority for bushco. Simple.

[kster]

10. I just don't get the SILENCE factor, right now

would be a perfect time for all the Dem's to get up and tell the American people that * and his regime hijacked the Republican party and stole the election from , but for some reason they don't.

To me it seems the Politicians have been manipulating their own elections, for some time now, and hate to give up that power, they would rather keep it secret and try other ways to get the election reform people off their backs, but we keep out smarting them at every turn, sooner or later they are going to have to come clean, or at the very least have HCPB elections, because as this story comes up around the Politicians, the machines aren't going to have a chance.

[Awsi Dooger]

11. Classify me wherever you want

Gore was the rightful victor in 2000 but the 10 names on the Florida ballot caused problems in punch card counties and changed the result. More forfeit than theft.

9/11 got in the way and altered a few demographics to the point we lost in 2002. Wellstone's death changed that result and possibly Carnahan's race in Missouri. We were caught off guard in Georgia with Ralph Reed and the debut of the 72 hour blitz and I believe that result was legit. Remember, there were early exit poll margins released on the internet early that afternoon that were slanted toward the Democrats per usual compared to the eventual result, yet Chambliss led Cleland by 4 points in those leaked margins. So apparently the early exit polls that we embrace like the secret to life regarding 2004 somehow don't jive with Diebold theft Georgia 2002.

In 2004 we nominated a blase challenger, lousy handicapping in regard to what electability meant against an incumbent. Bush had many more advantages as an incumbent with his party only one term in power than we wanted to acknowledge. Blackwell screwed us via suppression but I doubt it was 118,000. Regardless, we should have been aware Ohio was ground zero and addressed those potential problems ahead of time instead of lining up and bragging about thousands of lawyers available for election aftermath. I can predict all the post election lawyerly battles you want right now, no matter the location. NO CHANGE IN THE OUTCOME.

In 2006 we will win decisively but Republican turnout will not be as depressed as we expect. We need a 36 or 37 million congressional vote output, unprecedented for Democrats in a midterm, to put up the type of chamber changing numbers many on this website are predicting.

[BeFree]

12. Go classify yourself

I am not classifying anyone, just pointing out the difference between the people who think Dems are winners and those who think we are losers, and the line that is drawn between us and them.

[Febble]

13. Actually, you are not doing that.

You are classifying everyone, because "Us" and "Them" includes everyone. And you define "Us" as everyone who thinks that the Dems won 2000, 2002 and 2004, and "Them" as everyone else. Then you mischaracterise Everyone Else as thinking the Dems are losers. And when members of "Them" say - "hey - that's not what I think!" you produce a third category - those who can't make up their minds.

So you ARE classifying people, and you ARE in fact, classifying everyone, wrongly. And having condemned two of your three groups to being different from "Us" you then say that one of those groups you "thoroughly distrust".

So don't try to tell us that you are not classifying anyone, because that is exactly what you are doing. And it is both silly and offensive.

I think - I know - that the Dems won in 2000. Gore won the popular vote, and at least two excellent studies demonstrated that he won Florida. I don't know about 2002, not because I can't make up my mind, but because I don't know enough about it. And I think it is unlikely that the Dems won the popular vote in 2004, although I think it is possible that they won the electoral college vote. I certainly think it is likely that they won New Mexico's electoral votes. But my view is arrived at not because I can't make up my mind, but because I think that that the evidence that the Dems won is far from overwhelming. It certainly doesn't mean I think Dems are losers.

Intelligent people can make up their minds as to what they think is likely on the basis of evidence. Where the evidence is inconclusive, different people may come to different conclusions. You happen to have come to different conclusions from mine. You seem to find that more of a problem than I do. But what I do find a problem is your implication that only two views are possible, and that one of them is not acceptable. Actually I don't find it very democratic.

[BeFree]

14. Ok, so I classify

So sue me. Gawd.

If you want to be where you can't make up your mind, then that's cool. But I can't trust people, who, after 2+ years of study, can't decide if the crooked republicans stole the election, or not.

Individuals can go classify themselves into what ever category they want, I don't care, and what I say doesn't matter. But the simple division is that if you believe Dems lost, then you think Dems are losers, and that the American people elected these crooks.

I believe, and have come to that belief from first hand knowledge, book learning and advice from people far more intelligent than me, that the elections were stolen. I've even read a boatload of your writings, and there was a little of that contrarian view that made much sense. I know you want me to believe you, but I don't. No big deal.

The big deal is: I am a Democrat. I think we won the elections. Anybody who disagrees with that after hearing the same arguments I have, are, to use a rugby type of football term, on the other side of the ball and will be opposed at every play. Again, in football terms, they are keeping my team from winning, and I want democracy to win.

An even bigger deal: People have died for my democracy, and what I am doing pales in comparison, but I will fight to the death for it.

Here is just like tag football, so don't let it get under your skin. Posting here doesn't really make much of a difference. Don't you think?

[BeFree]

15. Besides

On this board are people claiming I, and others who share my views, as gloom and doomers, and worse names. And have even gone so far as to claim that because of our belief's it seems we want Dems to lose! Crazy nonsense, eh?

So I have been classified, denigrated, and dismissed time and again for my words about the need for election reform. But I just let it go, like water off my back, but only after trying to educate them with whatever knowledge I think they don't have. Same as anyone.

What I am saying is that classifying happens all the time here. And I do it too. No big deal. The big deal is, democracy has been stolen.

[Febble]

18. OK

posted before I read this.

I'm sorry if you have been denigrated because of your views. Believe me, I know the feeling.

And yes, I actually agree with you that "democracy has been stolen". If you have to argue who won, you don't have a democracy.

Now, get the votes out in November! After all, if I'm right, you have a great chance!

[BeFree]

21. There's your difference

I know that if we have a fair and square election, Dems will win. No question. Just like if it were fair and square in the past elections, Dems would be seen as winners and not losers.

Too many people here have been led to believe Dems are losers, and that's plain wrong. Plain to me, anyway.

[Febble]

23. Well, I'm glad it's plain to you

and I hope you are right. The election won't be fair and square though, because even if there is no wholesale vote-theft, voter suppression is unlikely to disappear.

I think Dems need a following wind to win. Fortunately I think you might have that following wind this time.

Good luck.

[Febble]

16. Of course I won't

but thanks for agreeing that classifying was what you were doing.

I have no idea why you would decide to trust or not trust someone on the basis of how conclusive, after 2 years study, they think the evidence is. Frankly, I tend to have more trust those who are cautious in their judgements than in those who are over-confident. In my experience, people are prone to error, and admitting the possibility of error is a good starting place. But whatever floats your boat.

Actually, I don't really mind whether you "believe" me or not. I don't offer my conclusions as something to be "believed" or "disbelieved". I'm not in the faith business, I'm in the science business. I offer analyses and provisional conclusions. You can come to your own, as you clearly have. But at least I offered you what I found.

And it would indeed be no big deal, except that you make it so, by repeatedly posting threads that call into question the integrity of those who disagree with you. I don't know why you do it, if it's no big deal.

But I do absolutely share your desire to see the Democrats win. What I don't understand is why disagreeing with you that it is clear that Kerry won in 2004 will stop the Dems winning in future. In fact thinking that Kerry won in 2004 if he didn't might well stop the Dems winning in future if it makes them think that it isn't worth voting. And it may also stop them winning in 2008 if they think that someone like Kerry was a good enough candidate. He wasn't, frankly, though I quite liked what I saw of the guy, and I dearly wish he was your president.

And yes, people died for your democracy, as they died for mine. And your democracy matters not only to you guys but the whole world. Your president is the most powerful man on earth. It's why I am so appalled at the dreadful state your democratic process is in. The fact that we are even having this debate, two years after the election, is a testament to the parlous state of your democracy.

But none of that has anything to do with whether I think that Kerry won more votes than Bush. I don't happen to think he did. It doesn't make the election fair, or square, and it doesn't make Bush a good president. I think we are both on the same side of that particular line.

Peace.

[BeFree]

19. Yes, science

Science that is repeatable, and reviewed, is what I base my belief's on. Not some internet poster who says they looked and found something but I can't repeat it or review it because ..... well whatever.

Integrity: If ya got it, ya got it. There are many people here whose integrity I do not question. And questioning someone's integrity is still allowed, right?

Why election reform? If there was no problem with using the machines, ie, if they counted correctly, why remove them?

Because they didn't count correctly. So, allowing the uncorrect machines to remain in the hands of the crooks is the problem. And we can't get rid of the crooks as long as they have the machines.

Either one thinks the machine use helped steal the elections, or they don't.
It is that simple.

[Febble]

22. Well, no

actually, accusing a fellow DUer of dishonesty is against DU rules, but whatever.

And I can repeat it, and review it, and have, and do. I told you exactly what I did and what I found, in exactly the same way as I would in a scientific paper.

And who said there was "no problem with using the machines"? Not me, nor my friend OTOH. Neither of us believe that the machines count correctly, either. We have strong evidence that they do not. And not just the new machines - punchcard machines mangle votes too, especially Democratic votes. But if I'm right, then you can still "get rid of the crooks" by voting, because I don't think the evidence supports wholesale vote theft.

And there you go again: "Either one thinks the machine use helped steal the elections, or they don't.
It is that simple." No, it's not that simple. I happen to believe that by undersupplying DREs to Democratic precincts in Franklin County Ohio, more Kerry voters than Bush voters were disenfranchised. And that machines cost Kerry votes in New Mexico. And almost certainly elsewhere too, particularly on punchcards. So yes, I think that machine use helped Bush win. So if it's that simple, then I'm Us. I certainly don't think the playing field was level. I think it was distinctly tilted in favour of Bush. Except that because I think that the evidence still suggests that in 2004 Kerry probably wouldn't even have won on a level playing field, or at least not the popular vote, I'm Them again.

Because it's Not That Simple.

[BeFree]

24. You can

But I can't. Repeat and review, that is, because I can't even begin to view the same data. That's the way it is. I accept that. Theerfore, however, I can have no confidence in that finding.

Sorry it's not simple to you. It is for me. Kerry won.

[Febble]

25. In other words

you accuse me of being either unable to perform a simple correlation, or of lying about the result.

In science, people report methods and results. That's what I did. Actually, I did more than that, I actually showed you the data points.

If you have no confidence in my work, that's up to you. But it's the way science works - you give the method, and the results, and, sometimes, an actual plot showing the datapoints so that the validity of the underlying assumptions of the analysis can be assessed. Occasionally, of course, scientists lie. I might be lying to you. But you are not allowed to say that on this forum. And in any case, I'm not.

And I have no doubt that the conviction that Kerry won is simple to you. Fair enough. But that doesn't entitle you simplify to the point of absurdity the wide range of views of those who don't regard it as that simple.

[BeFree]

26. No, no, no

I do not accuse you of anything like that. What I am saying is that your data is held by a third party that won't let me, or any of my buds get their hands on. It's not your fault, none of it!

As for science, it seems well known that only after other scientists are allowed to completely review and repeat one finding, is any such finding found to be of sufficient quality to base confidence upon.

I know, if it were up to you, that you'd fling all the stuff over the Atlantic in a heartbeat. But you can't. I accept that.

On edit: I am reminded of a real old song.....

My Bonnie lies over the ocean
My Bonnie lies over the sea
Oh bring back, bring back,
Oh bring back my Bonnie to me!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My Bonnie of course being the data from the exit-polls that was sent overseas.

[Febble]

27. You are partly right

when you say:

As for science, it seems well known that only after other scientists are allowed to completely review and repeat one finding, is any such finding found to be of sufficient quality to base confidence upon.

Peer-review is just that - review. However it is extremely rare that reviewers actually repeat the same analyses on the data. The analytical computations aren't the hard part - the hard part is selecting the right analyses, and interpreting them. What reviewers review is whether the analyses carried out support the interpretation based on them, and whether they were the right analyses (i.e. whether they asked the right questions). That is why I have given you information as to what I did and what I found. It is up to you to review whether my interpretation is justified. It may not be. Eomer came up with a very interesting critique that caused me to investigate further. In other words, he suggested different analyses.

Replication is something else. Scientists often try to replicate results with different data. In this case we do not have different data. What scientists might want to do if they had the data (and I appreciate that you absolve me of complicity in withholding it!) is to carry out different analyses. On the other hand, very few people have suggested what those analyses should be, and most of those who have have been DUers (eomer, TimeForChange, Bill Bored, OnTheOtherHand). And I checked them all out. We can discuss them further if you like.

But the bottom line is that the exit polls really can't tell you very much, except that they don't support the fraud story very well, and if anything contra-indicate massive widespread theft.

As for "overseas" - well, cyberspace is a strange place. I'm not sure it has oceans. Where is DU?

But we've wandered a long way from your OP. Let's agree that everyone on this forum wants to see the Dems win back the Senate and the House of Representatives in November, whatever we think happened in 2004. I'm optimistic (probably more optimistic than most).

Good luck!

[BeFree]

28. According to you...

...the: "..bottom line is that the exit polls really can't tell you very much, except that they don't support the fraud story very well, and if anything contra-indicate massive widespread theft."

But the exit-polls do tell us very much, they tell us that there was fraud and widespread theft. Your theory about why the exit-polls differed from the official diebolded count is just that, a theory. A theory that no other scientist can back up, so it remains a theory.

And nice of you to admit that the data is, and has been, witheld. And that is all anyone needs to know about your theory, eh? The data supporting your theory is, basically, a secret from everyone else.

On edit:

Too, you use your theory as an all encompassing explanation, while we, on the other hand, use evidence of machine corruption, funny results, and other polls beside the exits to establish fraud. The exits are a key piece, but are not the only piece that build the case, whereas your theory is your only evidence, and that theory has been reputed time and time again.