Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [POLITICS] Was the 2004 Election Stolen?

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, Vern Green wrote:

> The point of this that I might have failed to clarify, I do that 
> sometimes is this.

Well, that sentence doesn't give me a lot of confidence in what will 
follow.


> The exit poll numbers are incorrect, something was wrong with them.

Or, the exit poll numbers were right, nothing was wrong with them, and the 
thing that was wrong was the official vote count.


> If people want to claim they have been correct in the past and this one 
> time they have been wrong, then it is important to look at the source of 
> the problem.

Well, isn't that exactly what this thread has been about?  That was the 
topic of the article.


> Conspiracy theorists want to say the election was stolen, they want to 
> say that somehow, after the votes were collected, they were tampered 
> with, but there are two problems with this theory.

People who aren't "conspiracy theorists" want answers.

One of the points of collecting exit poll data is to check on the 
integrity of the election process.  When the exit polls fail, it is a 
warning sign.  You ignore it at your peril.


> First, the conspiracy theorists do not take into account all of those 
> precincts where DEMOCRATS are in charge of the process and the anomoly 
> still exists.

In the article it says that this did not happen.  Where are you getting 
this from?


> Second, the contractor hired to report the results of exit polls, 
> admitted they got it wrong.

What does that mean?  That their prediction for the outcome of the 
election was wrong or that there was something wrong with their process of 
data collection and/or analysis?  Please direct us to your source.


> Is that some kind of conspiracy, well if I were a conspiracy type 
> person, I would argue that the democrats were trying to influence the 
> election by proclaiming an early Kerry win in hopes of getting West 
> Coast republicans to not go to the polls. There has been a lot of talk 
> about that, each election year in fact.

Good one.  Very funny.  I recall on election night that they were 
reporting that Bush was about to concede and that Karen Hughes was 
admitting defeat.  I don't know why I'm not hearing about that anymore. 
Why did everything change in the end?  That was pretty remarkable.


> So the point here is that we can go on and on about how exit polls are 
> supposed to work and that over the years they have been accurate and 
> they continue to be accurate, but this last election proved that in some 
> point they are not accurate. Even if they were that accurate to begin 
> with.

Of course.  They are not accurate when there is fraud.

Enough reading.  Now here's a question:  Why aren't you concerned about 
the possibility of fraud?  I think it is very troubling.  Believe me, if 
Kerry had won, and I was seeing this kind of evidence of fraud by Kerry 
supporters, I would be very concerned and disappointed and I would want a 
very thorough investigation.

Much more than I wanted Bush to lose in 2004, I wanted a fair election. 
I will always prefer a fair election to having any particular candidate 
win.

Mike

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion