Reply #6: Read the first paragraph and tell me if it doesn’t sound like Hackett-OH 2 [View All]

[autorank]

OK, so there’s a little nepotism here but it’s the TRUTH, IS ALL. The first paragraph sounds familiar doesn’t it, kind of like Ohio District 2 and the stunning reversal at the last moment assuring a Republican victory.

The Unanswered Question: Who Really Won In 2004?
See this annotated thread. It’s all in the numbers

Monday, 18 July 2005, 2:53 pm
By DU Poster Autorank
Posted at Democratic Underground

According to the vote tabulators, in the 2004 presidential election George W. Bush won a stunning victory that defied all odds, particularly those applied by unbiased statisticians. He won despite trailing in most state and national polls. He won despite an approval rating of less than 50%, usually the death knell for an incumbent presidential candidate. He won despite trailing in the three National Exit Polls three timelines from 4pm to 12:22 am (13047 respondents) by a steady 48%-51%, miraculously winning the final exit poll (with only 613 additional respondents, totaling 13,660). This poll was “weighted” (altered) to meet the reported election result on the assumption that the reported result was accurate -- quite an assumption. The final poll showed a stunning reversal of the Kerry 51%-48% poll margin, which had been measured consistently all day by the same polling group: major news/networks and polling firm Edison-Mitofsky.

<snip>

In addition to the gender-based evidence cited above, TIA has shown that some weightings for the question “How did you vote in 2000” are mathematically impossible. For example, the final poll claims that 43% of all 2004 voters were former Bush 2000 voters. But 43% of 122.3 million, the number of votes in the 2004 presidential election, is 52.59 million, and Bush only got 50.46 million votes in 2000, approximately 1.75 million of them from voters who have since died. Therefore, Bush’s final poll exit poll numbers, WHICH WERE MATCHED TO THE VOTE, had to be off by 4 million votes.

The analysis also demonstrated that other voter statistics make it impossible for Bush to have won. Even if all Bush voters from 2000 showed up and voted for him, he still needed an additional 13 million votes. He didn’t get them from new voters and those who did not vote in 2000; those voters preferred Kerry by an almost 3-to-2 margin. Because of this, a Bush victory required that he must win a whopping 14% of Gore 2000 voters, all of whom had to return to vote in 2004. But Gore voters were angry; they came back to defeat Bush once again after having the election stolen from them.

Logical absurdities and inconsistencies in Election 2004 abound. The data, analysis, and narrative are available at (insert link) for open-minded individuals who want to form their own conclusions about “Stolen Election 2004.”

This work is just part of a comprehensive set of election fraud work and analysis provided by the dedicated voting rights activists in DemocraticUnderground.Com’s “2004: Election Results and Discussion” forum, a unique Net resource.