RFK JR. Was the 2004 Election Stolen?

[Zguy28]

Papa is that you? Where have you been all these years?

I am not running for president in 2008, so I'm not sure what you mean by "you'll get another shot".

Whoever wins, I hope they bring about accountability, responsibility, transperency, oversight, planning, vision, leadership, etc. Things that our government has been sorely lacking.

Tommy Franks in 2008!:applause:

[Burgold]

I really wish the left would make up its mind. Either Bush and his appointees are stupid and incompetent, or they're evil geniuses who secretly manipulate every situation and event to their advantage. Please, just pick one and limit your insane ranting to that side. Thank you, drive through.

This is not a contradictory stance. President Bush and his appointees for the most part are not the ones who run the day-in/day-out of their elections. The efficiency, effectiveness, and ruthlessness of their campaigns are not really representative of their ability to solve the problems of today and anticipate the problems of tomorrow.

For your consideration, imagine if FEMA had the same response time to a disaster that the Bush election team had when Cheney's gay daughter was mentioned in a debate. A full response and attack strategy was formulated and in place within minutes. They didn't need days to figure out who should respond, they responded in quick unified fashion. There was no finger pointing, or blaming, no searching for the best no bid PR company, or misallocation of campaign monies that failed to surface in a sound bite. Every penny was wisely used and every action well coordinated. ringing at all.

Either that or the qualities that make them great campaigners... ruthlessness, deciveness, violence is exactly what makes them ineffecient public servants.

[Thiebear]

This is not a contradictory stance. President Bush and his appointees for the most part are not the ones who run the day-in/day-out of their elections. The efficiency, effectiveness, and ruthlessness of their campaigns are not really representative of their ability to solve the problems of today and anticipate the problems of tomorrow.

For your consideration, imagine if FEMA had the same response time to a disaster that the Bush election team had when Cheney's gay daughter was mentioned in a debate. A full response and attack strategy was formulated and in place within minutes. They didn't need days to figure out who should respond, they responded in quick unified fashion. There was no finger pointing, or blaming, no searching for the best no bid PR company, or misallocation of campaign monies that failed to surface in a sound bite. Every penny was wisely used and every action well coordinated. ringing at all.

Either that or the qualities that make them great campaigners... ruthlessness, deciveness, violence is exactly what makes them ineffecient public servants.

Actually there was a strategy that was kept up to date on Katrina:

You have to FOLLOW it to ensure success... Like the Gay daughter mention.

They followed through...

FEMA is a great organization that tried and tried and tried: ONLY to be squashed by both the Governer Blanco, the Mayer and the President.....

But Blanco and Nagin lived there and are expected to do the heavy lifting...

AND: You don't NEED to do much when the other side is wrong..

Hence, the democrats not saying much right now...

[Larry]

Been reading the U Penn paper. I've only made it a few pages into it, but there's some questions that're already occurring to me.

1) Were absentee voters accounted for? I understand that one trend that's been taking place in recent elections is a big increase in people voting absentee simply for reasons of convenience. If there's been a big increase in absentee voting, and if absentee voters favored Bush (both are posibilities), then that would explain a Bush skew in the results.

2) Has the researcher compared the results of the exit polls against the actual vote tallies in the precints where the exit polls were run? If the pollsters were standing in front of precinct 4077, and their poll matches the actual voting tallies from that precinct, then either the illuminati was clever enough to only commit vote fraud in precincts that didn't have pollsters, or the pollsters simply didn't pick a representative place to conduct their polls.

[chomerics]

Actually there was a strategy that was kept up to date on Katrina:

Yea, it went something like playing the guitar on stage and sayint "You're doing a heck of a job brownie"

You have to FOLLOW it to ensure success... Like the Gay daughter mention.

They followed through...

FEMA is a great organization that tried and tried and tried: ONLY to be squashed by both the Governer Blanco, the Mayer and the President.....

But Blanco and Nagin lived there and are expected to do the heavy lifting...

Not to bring this into a Katrina debate, but there were neither the resources, not the authority to control a MASSIVE amount of US troops at the local or state level. When Bush gave the authority, there were over 40,000 troops in NO, which is what was needed. . .only he was to preoccupied with his vacation and photo-op to care about a US city dying.

It is the perfect example, and Burgold said it succintly, as to why it is not a contradiction, but is infact the truth about our idiotic leader.

For the other conservative posters who have nothing to add other then boo whoo, and stop whining, would you be saying this if it was a democrat that won office this way? I would. I guess that is the difference between true Americans and partisan hacks though, some of us actually want to IMPROVE our country.

[Kilmer17]

RFK Jr is respected? By whom? The left? Goody for him and them.

I will say this much, if ANYONE knows about election fraud, it's a Kennedy.

[chomerics]

2) Has the researcher compared the results of the exit polls against the actual vote tallies in the precints where the exit polls were run? If the pollsters were standing in front of precinct 4077, and their poll matches the actual voting tallies from that precinct, then either the illuminati was clever enough to only commit vote fraud in precincts that didn't have pollsters, or the pollsters simply didn't pick a representative place to conduct their polls.

I believe it didn't match in those precincts as well. One company said the poll was flawed because more Kerry supporters were sampled, yet the %'s match up with the voting publics demographics. It isn't like it is an isolated incident either, it is pretty much across the board in Bush's favor in almost every battlegroubd state.

I am also not as concernet about the exit polls, but the other things mentioned in the article, the things about Blackwell's purging of voter rolls in democratic counties, and whatnot.

[Kilmer17]

The exit polls were almost perfect.

What was wrong was attempting to look at exit polls DURING the day and somehow extrapolate how they MIGHT end up at the end of the day.

If we took 100 of us on Extremeskins divided 50-50 on candidates a and b, and said "vote a or b" sometime between 7 am and 7 pm, you cant look at results at 4 pm and say with anycertainty that a or b will win. ESPECIALLY if people more likely to vote early favor one side.

[BURGUNDYBLEEDER]

I believe it didn't match in those precincts as well. One company said the poll was flawed because more Kerry supporters were sampled, yet the %'s match up with the voting publics demographics. It isn't like it is an isolated incident either, it is pretty much across the board in Bush's favor in almost every battlegroubd state.

I am also not as concernet about the exit polls, but the other things mentioned in the article, the things about Blackwell's purging of voter rolls in democratic counties, and whatnot.

In these battleground states perhaps the fact that the Democratic candidate was John Kerry (Classic NE liberal) led to those who are conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans voting in mass for Bush when they otherwise might be just as inclined to vote Democratic.

[Kilmer17]

To continue.

I HOPE AND PRAY this get's national press.

I hope it becomes the biggest story for the next 6 months.

Because as long as the loser left continues to think that they lose because the GOP cheats and NOT because they lack ideas, plans and candidates that excite people, the easier it is for the GOP to beat them again.

[Thiebear]

The exit polls were almost perfect.

What was wrong was attempting to look at exit polls DURING the day and somehow extrapolate how they MIGHT end up at the end of the day.

If we took 100 of us on Extremeskins divided 50-50 on candidates a and b, and said "vote a or b" sometime between 7 am and 7 pm, you cant look at results at 4 pm and say with anycertainty that a or b will win. ESPECIALLY if people more likely to vote early favor one side.

Actually I read in one of the links provided:

They sampled too many women (who hasn't) and thats why the numbers were off...

[Zguy28]

For the other conservative posters who have nothing to add other then boo whoo, and stop whining, would you be saying this if it was a democrat that won office this way? I would.

To bad for me in 2004 if that would have been the case, but it wasn't Mr. Sour Grapes. I would be looking forward to 2008 and do what I could to make the best of it.

I guess that is the difference between true Americans and partisan hacks though, some of us actually want to IMPROVE our country.

From my point of view, "improve" is not the word I would use to describe what you want to do to our nation.

Partisan Hack?------>Kennedy's. Chomerics=Guilty by association.

Oh, and by the way, I'm so American, I could be Superman. Apple Pie looks like caviar & vodka compared to me.

[Larry]

The exit polls were almost perfect.

Did you look at the U Penn paper chom linked? In the 11 "battleground" states (the states which were accurately predicted to have the closest votes), 10 of them had final vote tallies that favored Bush by roughly 5% more than the exit polls showed.

None of the states showed a final total that tilted towards Kerry (compared to the exit polls).

According to the exit polls, Kerry won 9 of those 11 states. According to the vote totals, Kerry won 5.

-----

Now, on page 3 of the U Penn paper, the author points out something about the exit poll data. The exit poll data was changed, by the pollsters, after the polls closed, to make the "corrected" exit poll data agree with the "official" numbers that were starting to be released.

What he says is that now, if you went to CNN's web page and looked at exit poll data, the exit polls would match the official totals, but that's because the exit poll data was changed around 11PM on election day to match the official results.

(He also mentions that MIT did a study about exit poll data that said the exit polls were accurate, but MIT used the "exit poll" numbers that had been altered to match the official numbers. In short, MIT concluded that after adjusting the exit poll data to match official results, the exit poll data matched official results.)

[chomerics]

The exit polls were almost perfect.

What was wrong was attempting to look at exit polls DURING the day and somehow extrapolate how they MIGHT end up at the end of the day.

Actually Kilmer, the problem was based on the nightime exit poll data, the one posted after midnight, which showed the shift.

If we took 100 of us on Extremeskins divided 50-50 on candidates a and b, and said "vote a or b" sometime between 7 am and 7 pm, you cant look at results at 4 pm and say with anycertainty that a or b will win. ESPECIALLY if people more likely to vote early favor one side.

Yes, but they would not completely sway in one direction in favor of one canidate over 85% of the time.

Here is another analysis on the version you are debating that either "More Republicans were reluctant to answer the polls" or that "there were a vast number of Bush supporters to go to the polls at night".

http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/Exit_Polls_2004_Edison-Mitofsky.pdf

[Kilmer17]

Of course they were altered. As they became final, they changed. Because as more people voted, the results changed. That's why we use actual ballots to determine a winner and not a poll of people that voted before 3 pm.

So we're all clear, RFK wants us to believe that the GOP not only manipulated the actual polls, but they also maniupalted the exit polls to match.

I also like how he summarily states that exit polls are exact science now, when that's the farthest from the truth.

They are not designed to give an early glimpse of the winner of the race, they are designed to give a sampling of the people voting.

A fact that the left still cant seem to grasp.

[AlexRS]

it is a well-known fact that whoever waves the flag hardest is considered most American.

What is the story on this Blackwell company, anyways?

What methods are used to prevent fraud?

[chomerics]

Now, on page 3 of the U Penn paper, the author points out something about the exit poll data. The exit poll data was changed, by the pollsters, after the polls closed, to make the "corrected" exit poll data agree with the "official" numbers that were starting to be released.

What he says is that now, if you went to CNN's web page and looked at exit poll data, the exit polls would match the official totals, but that's because the exit poll data was changed around 11PM on election day to match the official results.

CNN changed the exit polls at 1am. which differed from the final exit polling data posted ar 12:21am. The DU and Kos went haywire, because they changed the winner from Kerry to Bush.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/3/3646/14136

Again, not that this is the entire issue, and I am more concerned about the disenfranchisement of voters, but there are a LOT of discrepencies from the last election.

What I want to know is how could we claim the Ukraine had a rigged election based on exit polls, when our OWN exit polling data showed a WORSE discrepency?

[Kilmer17]

Very interesting link chom.

But why should we believe the second analysis that favors the conspiracy angle over the first analysis that explains in detail why exit polls werent "wrong" they were just analyzid wrong.

[chomerics]

To bad for me in 2004 if that would have been the case, but it wasn't Mr. Sour Grapes. I would be looking forward to 2008 and do what I could to make the best of it.

I see, as long as it favors one party, the one you support, it is OK with you. How truiy totalitarian of you. Stalin would be proud if you were one of his minions.

From my point of view, "improve" is not the word I would use to describe what you want to do to our nation.

Since when is making sure we have free and unbiased elections not an "imporvement" to our country? Oh yea, once king Dubya was appointed :doh:

[AlexRS]

it seems the best way to address this would be to say "how can we prevent this" vs "oh my, they rigged elections"

It would be much easier to make noise under the "we want to prevent fraud" banner.

[Kilmer17]

CNN changed the exit polls at 1am. which differed from the final exit polling data posted ar 12:21am. The DU and Kos went haywire, because they changed the winner from Kerry to Bush.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/3/3646/14136

Again, not that this is the entire issue, and I am more concerned about the disenfranchisement of voters, but there are a LOT of discrepencies from the last election.

What I want to know is how could we claim the Ukraine had a rigged election based on exit polls, when our OWN exit polling data showed a WORSE discrepency?

They changed the results because the data had changed.

I think the disenfranchisement angle has some merit. I DO believe that the GOP did everything they could to prevent Dems from voting. As I also believe the Dems did everything they could to prevent the GOPers from voting. It's similar to FLA in 2000. The Dems got mad because the GOP used a law that the Dems had enacted earlier.

Too bad.

As long as a LAW wasnt broken, it's sour grapes IMO. It might be stupid, antiquaited laws, but they've been used before and certainly will be used again.

[Larry]

And BTW, chom,

I wish I could've jumped on this thread earlier. I really don't know why you bother posting things like this, when either of us could've predicted the response to it:

• Attack the newspaper that published it.
  
• Attack the author.
  
• Attack the author's uncle.
  
• Attack the ES poster who posted the article.
  
• "The other side does it too!"
  
• "It worked! Ha Ha! We're great! Look how much power we have! It's mine, all mine!"
  

[nelms]

People, it is fruitless trying to debate Chommie. He is hellbent on his crusade to tear down Bush, so this thread is just another example of that. Dude needs some serious couch therapy. By the way, claiming RFK Jr. is well respected is just off the charts laughable. I have more credibility in my left testicle.

[chomerics]

Very interesting link chom.

But why should we believe the second analysis that favors the conspiracy angle over the first analysis that explains in detail why exit polls werent "wrong" they were just analyzid wrong.

The first poll doesn't say they were wrong at all, it says the official tally differed from the exit polling outside a statistical mean (something like 5 sigma which is a HUGE amount).

The second one uses the "official" Edison/Mitofsky explinantion, that the exit polls were wrong, and shows why this is an impossibility. It basically states that a change in data was an impossibility based on the final numbers (this is from screenshots of the final exit poll results listed on websites). It also states that the study did not look into an obvious analysis, that both were right, the exit polls and the official number, thus opening the door for election fraud.

[chomerics]

They changed the results because the data had changed.

You are using two different things, the exit poll data, and the actual results. The exit poll data did not change, but the actual data did not correspond to the exit poll data, so they changed their numbers to match the real data.

I think the disenfranchisement angle has some merit. I DO believe that the GOP did everything they could to prevent Dems from voting. As I also believe the Dems did everything they could to prevent the GOPers from voting. It's similar to FLA in 2000. The Dems got mad because the GOP used a law that the Dems had enacted earlier.

Too bad.

As long as a LAW wasnt broken, it's sour grapes IMO. It might be stupid, antiquaited laws, but they've been used before and certainly will be used again.

That is where it is debatable, I do think the law was broken, and Blackwell illegally used his position as election chairman to disenfranchise one party, the one who's party he wasn't the chair of.

Again I did not post theis for "sour grapes" but because it was a pertinant news story released today, and if our elections are not transparent, then we have NO democracy. It is a core and fundamental to ANY democratic system.