Bush Got more Votes than there Were Voters

[materia3]

I hope you'll understand that your endorsement doesn't mean very much. Clearly you only hear and believe things that fit your worldview. I prefer to interpret it things for myself and disregard triple hearsay.

Provide the link to the MSNBC transcript.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/

 

[materia3]

Here's the exact, precise actual LINK to the segment on Countdown last night which alerted me, at least, to this growing controversy (transcript). I actually found the other material before I found this. Thanks for telling me there was a transcript out there somewhere.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6442857/


Rob, after you've read it, would deeply appreciate your view on this situation, taking into account the other references provided
also.

Thanks...

 

[Rob Lister]

Here's the exact, precise actual LINK to the segment on Countdown last night which alerted me, at least, to this growing controversy (transcript). I actually found the other material before I found this. Thanks for telling me there was a transcript out there somewhere.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6442857/


Rob, after you've read it, would deeply appreciate your view on this situation, taking into account the other references provided
also.

Thanks...

Well, after viewing it I took a single example, baker county fl, and looked at their election website. I couldn't find reference to the number of registered dems vs reps but what I could find where the unofficial election results for this election and the 2002 general election.

Guess what? For such a 'reportedly' high democrat population, unusually in itself for a county that far north, they certainly do vote for republicans pretty much as a rule. Pretty much the same ratios applied.

Are you suggesting that the 2002 election was also 'fixed'?

http://bakercountyfl.org/elections/general02.htm

 

[jj]

It seems to me that the assertions made here can easily be tested.

There is, is there not, the number of registered voters available as public information.

There is, is there not, ditto for the election results.

Somebody who's there, do the homework. I could do it for around here, but the exit polls and the vote agree here.

 

[aerocontrols]

Well, after viewing it I took a single example, baker county fl, and looked at their election website. I couldn't find reference to the number of registered dems vs reps but what I could find where the unofficial election results for this election and the 2002 general election.

Guess what? For such a 'reportedly' high democrat population, unusually in itself for a county that far north, they certainly do vote for republicans pretty much as a rule. Pretty much the same ratios applied.

Are you suggesting that the 2002 election was also 'fixed'?

http://bakercountyfl.org/elections/general02.htm

Follow my link above, Rob. "Charts, with numbers" and you'll find a PDF with lots of counties, including Baker.

Baker County

Registration: 8926 Dem / 3126 Rep.

2004: 2180 Kerry / 7738 Bush

2000: 2392 Gore / 5610 Bush

1996: 2273 Clinton / 3864 Dole / 667 Perot

Yes, this overwhelmingly (nearly 3:1) Democratic - registered county votes Republican in national elections, because it's full of conservative Democrats. Yes, Bush did better in 2004 than he did in 2000 when he barely won the state, and better than Dole in 1996 who lost the election but still won Baker County. Dole even beat Clinton + Perot in that county.

Must be fraud

 

[Kodiak]

You make the error of equating or rather confusing Kerry the person with the DNC. They are not necessarily equivalent where this issue is concerned. Expect nothing less than for the party to pursue its stated platform.

Excellent point.

Now try finding reference of it at John Kerry's own site...

I predict crickets...

 

[Suddenly]

Follow my link above, Rob. "Charts, with numbers" and you'll find a PDF with lots of counties, including Baker.

Baker County

Registration: 8926 Dem / 3126 Rep.

2004: 2180 Kerry / 7738 Bush

2000: 2392 Gore / 5610 Bush

1996: 2273 Clinton / 3864 Dole / 667 Perot

Yes, this overwhelmingly (nearly 3:1) Democratic - registered county votes Republican in national elections, because it's full of conservative Democrats. Yes, Bush did better in 2004 than he did in 2000 when he barely won the state, and better than Dole in 1996 who lost the election but still won Baker County. Dole even beat Clinton + Perot in that county.

Must be fraud

I guess some people don't realize that in some counties people have to register as a certain party in order to participate in local elections. When one party traditionally controls an area, the only local elections that matter are the primary elections, and in many places these are closed to all but party registrants. Even where primaries are later opened there is no real hurry to re-register.

I'll wager that there are many W.Va. counties with similar democrat registration numbers that went for Bush.

I just don't imagine caring all that much as only the most uninformed dupe would accept such a thing as evidence...

 

[riverlethe]

If only the elections were stolen, and a slight majority of Americans actually had a brain...

 

[Rob Lister]

I guess some people don't realize that in some counties people have to register as a certain party in order to participate in local elections. When one party traditionally controls an area, the only local elections that matter are the primary elections, and in many places these are closed to all but party registrants. Even where primaries are later opened there is no real hurry to re-register.

I'll wager that there are many W.Va. counties with similar democrat registration numbers that went for Bush.

I just don't imagine caring all that much as only the most uninformed dupe would accept such a thing as evidence...

While I don't expect anyone to take this as the gospel, I just got off the phone with THE Baker County Supervisor of Elections. I asked her if the numbers of reg. Dems and Reps was on the up and up. She said yes. I asked her about the election results and she said it was no suprise and that it was a small county that always votes republican in national and state elections.

"moral issues" was how she put it.

Go figure.

 

[aerocontrols]

I guess some people don't realize that in some counties people have to register as a certain party in order to participate in local elections. When one party traditionally controls an area, the only local elections that matter are the primary elections, and in many places these are closed to all but party registrants. Even where primaries are later opened there is no real hurry to re-register.

That's the case here in downtown Atlanta. When I voted in the primary, there was almost nothing on my ballot. I should have declared myself a Democrat, but I just couldn't bring myself to do it.

MattJ

 

[Beerina]

You're right! A website with dissident in its name is hardly a reputable source. Would you take MSNBC? How about a dozen congressmen?

There are multiple accounts including the following which can be found at:

http://www.buzzflash.com/[quoteJust watched Keith Olbermann on MSNBC in which he did a story on election problems. He said that there were 90,000 more votes cast in Ohio than registered voters (he went through a list of counties and said how many voters were registered in each and how many extra thousands of votes were recorded).

He reported how in Florida counties, heavily-leaning dem counties went overwhelmingly for Bush -- the first time these counties have ever voted Repub. He showed charts with numbers, etc., it was very compelling.

He said that all the irregularities in Florida and Ohio have happened in counties using non-paper-trail e-voting from the companies run by Bush's friends.

He interviewed a reporter from the Cincinnati paper who discussed how homeland security barred reporters from witnessing the voting in some of the major minority areas in town, that this was the first time the press was ever kept out of and barred from witnessing the voting. The Sec of State in Ohio says that it was under orders from Bush's Homeland Security chief, who said that these cities in Ohio were under a highly increased threat of terrorism during the election. For this reason, only one entrance was open for the voting in these (largely democratic) areas, and the press was barred from coming in to see the voting, or to have the usual offices in the building they have had in every past year.

Olbermann then had Rep. John Conyers on and there are a dozen or so representatives demanding an investigation from the GAO. So it's Chicago-style voting taken to a national level -- the GOP dead vote, the GOP takes away votes from Dems and turned them into Bush votes, and they just add extra votes (for pres, not on the other issues or candidates) to the totals.

In Florida where Bush scored big, on the same ballots Democratic measures scored big, such as making a Florida minimum wage $1 above the federal level. In other words, all these people voted for Bush AND voted to pass these Democratic measures, which the GOP had tried to defeat. So this indicates that only the presidential election voting was rigged, they didn't rig the rest of the voting form.

Looks like maybe we're going to get some sort of investigation into the fraud that's gone down after all, even if Kerry caved in.

Also, some counties in Ohio where the press has always been allowed to inspect figures from voting -- have been taken away and they're not allowed to view them. They're filing something in court to force the Sec of State to release them for public review.

Also, one heavily-Dem county in Florida discovered a huge stack of absentee ballots that had not been counted and told the Sec of State's office about the ballots and said they would count them -- and the Sec of State told them to hold on, and then came and took the ballots away, so the officials in that county were never able to count them.

[/QUOTE]

With all due respect, swap a few words and it sounds indistinguishable from rabid UFO conspiracy theories. Voting machines "by Bush's friends", etc.

Also, these arguments completely ignore the flip side -- such as preplanned court objections by Democrats about racial intimidation (wherein the judge would extend those districts' voting hours by 1 or 2 or more, purely coincidentally, I'm sure, giving extra votes for Democrats as those are typically heavily Democratic districts.) Vote early, vote often. 1 of 5 registered people aren't even in that district anymore, many dead, yet still "vote", a curiously large number Democratic.

And don't blame me, I voted Libertarian. Both of youse guyses are dorks.

 

[corplinx]

Uhhh, the MSNBC piece was basically how there are all these "reynold's foil hat" theories and the nuggets of truth that feed them.

I wouldn't claim that as a victory.

 

[Cleon]

That's the case here in downtown Atlanta. When I voted in the primary, there was almost nothing on my ballot. I should have declared myself a Democrat, but I just couldn't bring myself to do it.

MattJ

Say what? Dude, Georgia has crossover voting; you can pick which primary (Democrat, Republican) you want to vote in each election by going in and standing in the correct line. I vote in Dunwoody; during a primary there's a sign for "Democrat" and one for "Republican." You don't have to be registered in the party you want to vote in.

 

[jj]

DOES
ANYONE
HAVE
ANY
NUMBERS?



That is all.

 

[corplinx]

DOES
ANYONE
HAVE
ANY
NUMBERS?
[/size]


That is all.

Before the election, republicans were claiming there were more registrations than there were people and had "numbers" to back it up. Also remember how republicans were up in arms over areas with 99 percent registration growing their registrations by leaps and bounds?

Post election the fringe democrats are claiming there were more voters than registrations.

The problem is in ascertaining what the legit tallies are of A. eligible voters
B. registered voters

While
C. cast votes
is the number that must be reconciled.

The GOP claims there were irregularities between A and B _before_ the election and the democrats claim there are irregularities between B and C _after_ losing.

To make a case for either of these, we need to first verify that the baselines are indeed correct.

 

[aerocontrols]

Say what? Dude, Georgia has crossover voting; you can pick which primary (Democrat, Republican) you want to vote in each election by going in and standing in the correct line. I vote in Dunwoody; during a primary there's a sign for "Democrat" and one for "Republican." You don't have to be registered in the party you want to vote in.

In my precinct, there was no line or any signs just a table where everyone sat down and filled out a Republican, Democrat, or Independent form to request a ballot. I understood that choosing either form would slap a party ID on me, despite that I can change it in the next election.

I should have been more specific about which portions of Suddenly's post I was agreeing about. What I meant is that 'it's also the case here that if you want to participate meaningfully in the primary process, you need to vote a Democratic ballot in the primaries'.

 

[Cleon]

In my precinct, there was no line or any signs just a table where everyone sat down and filled out a Republican, Democrat, or Independent form to request a ballot. I understood that choosing either form would slap a party ID on me, despite that I can change it in the next election.

Yeah, but so what? If you can vote Republican or independent in the next primary, what difference does it make if they "slap a party ID on you?"

I should have been more specific about which portions of Suddenly's post I was agreeing about. What I meant is that 'it's also the case here that if you want to participate meaningfully in the primary process, you need to vote a Democratic ballot in the primaries'.

Yeah, but different locations swing different ways. A friend of mine is uber-conservative (backed Cain) and is active in the Republican party up in Forsyth County. Up in Cumming (yes, for those of you not from Georgia, it's a real town and spelled just like that), it's the other way--for all intents and purposes, the Republican primary decides the election.

 

[aerocontrols]

Yeah, but so what? If you can vote Republican or independent in the next primary, what difference does it make if they "slap a party ID on you?"

Party registration is public record. I don't particularly care to be targetted for fundraising or GOTV operations or anything else because I marked down that I am a Democrat. Further, registering as a Democrat just discourages the Republican party from running any local candidates here.

Yeah, but different locations swing different ways. A friend of mine is uber-conservative (backed Cain) and is active in the Republican party up in Forsyth County. Up in Cumming (yes, for those of you not from Georgia, it's a real town and spelled just like that), it's the other way--for all intents and purposes, the Republican primary decides the election.

Yeah, that's right. It was much the same for me when I lived in Kansas. And?

This discussion is about why counties in Florida which have a majority of registered Democrats voted for Bush.

 

[valis]

I guess some people don't realize that in some counties people have to register as a certain party in order to participate in local elections. When one party traditionally controls an area, the only local elections that matter are the primary elections, and in many places these are closed to all but party registrants. Even where primaries are later opened there is no real hurry to re-register.
...

That used to be the case in Florida but I don't belive it is anymore. Assuming the change was statewide independents and third parties can vote in any primary where the primary is deciding the winner of the seat. This election I got to vote in several local races in the primary despite being a registered Libertarian.

 

[aerocontrols]

Here are the results for Cuyahoga county, Ohio, from 2000.

So:

2000

Gore 203,161 votes (57%)
Bush 138,538 votes (39%)


2004

Kerry 433,262 votes (67%)
Bush 215,624 votes (33%)


Conclusion: Evidence is mounting that Bush stole 93,000 votes - sure he did.

The numbers look to me more as if Kerry stole 93,000 votes. Does Olbermann say in his news story why he thinks the '93,000 more votes than voters' went to Bush?

Please Please Please let's investigate this situation.

pretty please

MattJ