News Was the 2004 US Presidential election rigged?

[Pengwuino]

What separates the liberals from the conservatives is liberals will agree that it is bad for both sides to be bad (i.e., not be hypocritical).

But since liberals always claim they can do no wrong... that clause is never fully implimented

Come to think of it really... both sides probably did a lot of illegal acts but with the way people are, I wonder if ANY of it was actually planned and authorized from the party's main committees. Id say odds are 100:1 that most voter fraud was perpetrated by small, rogue groups of ideologs. Almost every report is of voter intimidation, misinformation, and other small things done at the localest of levels. Now what's more probable, the DNC or RNC leaders authorizing small, insignificant acts that screw with a handful of voters that would have a 1000 fold negative effect on them if they were caught authorizing it... or these extremist ideologs "doing their small part for America" with really no chance of being caught/prosecuted.

Look at the people out there. Look at that Sheenan woman. Her son died, she's in the middle of a divorce... and her main priority is going out and traveling across the country having a merry ol time protesting the Bush Administration. And there are people worse then this! If someones willing to do this... voter fraud that probably won't get punished because it wouldn't be easily proved would be nothing to them. I say its all local level. Small groups of republicans and democrats who are just more then willing to compromise US laws in order for their candidate to get elected (or probably, more likely, to piss off the other party)

Whoa, PF Just had a server fart

 

[SOS2008]

Look at the people out there. Look at that Sheenan woman. Her son died, she's in the middle of a divorce... and her main priority is going out and traveling across the country having a merry ol time protesting the Bush Administration.

You never cease to amaze me.

 

[Pengwuino]

You never cease to amaze me.

Oh ok... i guess mourning deaths and dealing with your own life's major problems is only top priority for republicans

 

[edward]

Was there election fraud involved in 2004, yes definitely.

From a Republican Senatorial web site:

Shortcut to: http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/Feb1504VoterFraudSD.pdf

Why would the Republicans still be pushing election reform unless they thought it was true?

 

[Townsend]

What separates the liberals from the conservatives is liberals will agree that it is bad for both sides to be bad (i.e., not be hypocritical).

Really? That's funny because the only thing I ever hear from you is anti-republican...

When I see a "fair and balanced" point of view that bad mouths liberals and their retarded mistakes just as much as they bad mouth republicans then and only then will I listen to a comment from them like the one you made. As it is I have yet to see you take a seriously anti-liberal point of view even once. And that is saying a lot because I have read a lot of your comments.

 

[Pengwuino]

Why would the Republicans still be pushing election reform unless they thought it was true?

Theres a difference between having an election stolen and there being voter fraud. Most evidence points to both sides committing voter fraud but no side was able to do so much that they "stole" the election.

And didn't someone here ignorantly say that Bush ahd to resort to smear tactics A few universities up North... or well, eastern time zone... this isn't the Union anymore... did a study of all the ads and reports during the election season and concluded that there were 2x as many attack ads against Bush then there was against Kerry.

Google is haven a tough time figuring out what study I am looken for though... "2004 election" + "negative ads" + "universities" + "study" isn't exactly hitting the nail on the head... bout 40,000 blogs are coming up on me.

 

[Informal Logic]

Theres a difference between having an election stolen and there being voter fraud. Most evidence points to both sides committing voter fraud but no side was able to do so much that they "stole" the election.
And didn't someone here ignorantly say that Bush ahd to resort to smear tactics A few universities up North... or well, eastern time zone... this isn't the Union anymore... did a study of all the ads and reports during the election season and concluded that there were 2x as many attack ads against Bush then there was against Kerry.
Google is haven a tough time figuring out what study I am looken for though... "2004 election" + "negative ads" + "universities" + "study" isn't exactly hitting the nail on the head... bout 40,000 blogs are coming up on me.

Most of the so called anti Bush articles were about Dan Rather, which helped Bush. Have you educated yourself on Bush's background? Do you believe the truth of his life (in particular his failure to serve his full term in the Guard) was made public? The SBV lies about Kerry were overshadowed by Dan's screw up, resulting in media focus on this instead.

 

[edward]

a study of all the ads and reports during the election season and concluded that there were 2x as many attack ads against Bush then there was against Kerry.
Google is haven a tough time figuring out what study I am looken for though... "2004 election" + "negative ads" + "universities" + "study" isn't exactly hitting the nail on the head... bout 40,000 blogs are coming up on me.

I hate the whole negative ad thingy, it only blurs the real issues.
The info below is from a university of Missouri study. It looks to me like both sides were pretty nasty.

The ads which are most negative are from the non-candidate groups: 77% of the statements in conservative ads and 82% of the statements in liberal groups' ads were attacks.

Of the two candidates, Bush was more negative, attacking in 50% of his ad statements; Kerry attacked in 44% of his ad statements.

http://presidentialcampaign2004.coas.missouri.edu/AdWars04.htm

 

[Pengwuino]

I hate the whole negative ad thingy, it only blurs the real issues.
The info below is from a university of Missouri study. It looks to me like both sides were pretty nasty.

And what's more amazing (yet predictable) is that the independant groups were incredibly negative. I mean think about that study, the people we are arguing about, the leaders we hate and tear apart... they are actually more civilized about this then people like you and me are. I guess we're really just asking for it. If all groups made of people like you and me can do is slander people... well then I guess we deserve what we get.

 

[russ_watters]

Was there election fraud involved in 2004, yes definitely.
From a Republican Senatorial web site:
Shortcut to: http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/Feb1504VoterFraudSD.pdf
Why would the Republicans still be pushing election reform unless they thought it was true?

That link says the election was not turned by fraud. My question asked if you think the election was turned by fraud. Which is your opinion?

 

[pattylou]

What I liked about Kerry was his strong environmental record. I also liked that he would re-instate pay-go. I thought that this would help get us back on better economic footing.

What I liked about Bush... - I think he has a strong conviction in himself. Laura seems nice enough. I don't agree with anything that they promote.

I recognize that bush seemed less elitist, and this is a good thing in a candidate. I also recognized that kerry would actually get more accomplished for lower classes (even though he seems more elitist) than Bush, and this is also a good thing.

^My efforts at non-smear tactics, as fair across the board as I can make on the spot.

 

[ron damon]

I also recognized that kerry would actually get more accomplished for lower classes

Au contraire.

 

[SOS2008]

Really? That's funny because the only thing I ever hear from you is anti-republican...
When I see a "fair and balanced" point of view that bad mouths liberals and their retarded mistakes just as much as they bad mouth republicans then and only then will I listen to a comment from them like the one you made. As it is I have yet to see you take a seriously anti-liberal point of view even once. And that is saying a lot because I have read a lot of your comments.

I am anti neocon foreign policy, fundamentalist special interests, and corruption, so I’m anti-Bush and the current GOP. At the same time, I am pro balanced budget, right to bear arms, capital punishment, becoming energy independent (I see all of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs as national security issues), and am against illegal entry into our country--to name a few. And...I am pro-privacy/civil rights (pro-choice), separation of church and state, pro middle class/American worker, scientific advancement (including stem-cell research) and believe we are our brother's keepers and wards of our world (i.e., poverty and the environment). The Republican Party represents very little of my values at this time.

 

[Townsend]

At the same time, I am pro balanced budget, right to bear arms, capital punishment, becoming energy independent (I see all of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs as national security issues), and am against illegal entry into our country--to name a few. And...I am pro-privacy/civil rights (pro-choice), separation of church and state, pro middle class/American worker, scientific advancement (including stem-cell research) and believe we are our brother's keepers and wards of our world (i.e., poverty and the environment).

That is awesome...

The Republican Party represents very little of my values at this time.

I would agree with you about the GOP but at the same time I don't believe that the DNC is very representative of your values either...

 

[Pengwuino]

I would agree with you about the GOP but at the same time I don't believe that the DNC is very representative of your values either...

2/3 of what she says is the GOP's superficial principles oddly enough (maybe the propoganda gets to you after a while?). The DNC doesn't even superficially stand for that 2/3 either. I say superficially because if you really get serious, none of the parties have any principles... or at least principles they will stand up for.

The DNC is for energy independance (but of course, as politicians, their proposals are next to idiotic), privacy rights, and scientific advancement. The rest they aren't for at all. I mean once the DNC stops fundraising with Hollywood elitists that get $20 million a movie and have multiple mansions around the world... THEN they can say they are for the "little guy" and mean it. And of course, when they stop torpedoing legislation that would establish alternative energy sources in their backyards... then they can say they are for the environment.

 

[Townsend]

I say superficially because if you really get serious, none of the parties have any principles... or at least principles they will stand up for.

Parties change with their voters and I would say that the GOP has made some changes for the worse to win elections. However I agree that in principle the GOP better reflects those core values that SOS listed than the DNC does. But that's my point, they are both screwed up parties...don't just critize the GOP when the DNC is just as bad.
Statements like:

What separates the liberals from the conservatives is liberals will agree that it is bad for both sides to be bad.

Are just plain BS and really give you feeling your dealing with partisan hacks...

 

[Pengwuino]

I think the funny part is that there are actually good candidates out there in the 3rd party realm... but people just don't want to cough up the dough to support them. I mean let's think about it... no one seems to be very happy with the choices we get from the main party... yet we really won't stray from them. Business contributions to the 2004 election totalled $1.5 billion. Now... that seems like a lot of money... but let's think about it. In a country with almost 300,000,000 people... $1.5 billion is not a lot of money. Is it utterly impossible to find 15,000,000 who will donate $1000 each or 30M/$500? And of course, a bunch of rich people and ideologs with no lives (but unfortunately, probably no jobs either) can offset a bunch of poor people.

People deserve it.

 

[SOS2008]

That is awesome...
I would agree with you about the GOP but at the same time I don't believe that the DNC is very representative of your values either...

I knew you would say that, and to a large extent you are right (oh no did I say that?).

I suppose I'd have to make that a weighted list. I would put pro-choice/stem cell research and separation of church and state (Supreme Court issues) and anti-neocon foreign policy (Iraq war) at the top--in which case the DNC looks better. A balanced budget is up for grabs because Bush/GOP sure aren't doing it, and neither party--as a party--are against illegal entry into the country, though there are quite a few Dems who are. After the abusive power grabbing behavior of the Republican majority, I'll vote Democrat no matter who the candidates are this next time around just for the sake of balance.

A draw back of being Independent is I can't vote in primaries.

 

[juliewriter]

Sixteen percent of you geeks don't know?

It's really tough when you have to explain statistics to geeks. Anybody who doesn't believe the 2004 election was a free and open election must read the July 31, 2006 edition of The New Yorker article "Holy Toledo" by Frances Fitzgerald.

 

[Gokul43201]

Anybody who doesn't believe the 2004 election was a free and open election must read the July 31, 2006 edition of The New Yorker article "Holy Toledo" by Frances Fitzgerald.

It's really tough when you have to explain grammar to a writer!

The people who do not believe the election was free and open are not the people that you want to convince.

I'm one of those people among the 16% who picked "I don't know". And I'm one of the people you probably intended to have read the New Yorker article. But being a resident of Columbus, I'm not only more than aware of Rod Parsley, the World Harvest Church, Ken Blackwell, 80-pound paper, and how many shares of Diebold were in the Blackwell portfolio, I've even raised many of these points in this forum.

There's mountains of circustantial (statistical) evidence based entirely on the irregularities in Ohio (and it leaves me highly suspicious of the results), but I've not seen conclusive proof nor do I think it's very likely to make a whit of a difference.

 

[edward]

It's really tough when you have to explain statistics to geeks. Anybody who doesn't believe the 2004 election was a free and open election must read the July 31, 2006 edition of The New Yorker article "Holy Toledo" by Frances Fitzgerald.

This doesn't make the election sound open and free.

On Election Day, voters in traditionally Democratic areas encountered a variety of obstacles, among them Republican challengers at the precincts, the improper purging of names from voter rolls, and, the most serious, a scarcity of voting machines. In suburban and rural areas, there were plenty of machines, but in urban precincts, where many African-Americans voted, and in other Democratic-leaning precincts, such as those around college campuses, people had to stand in line for as long as ten hours, and many of them just gave up.

After the election, more irregularities were discovered, among them spoiled ballots, voting-machine errors, provisional ballots mistakenly invalidated, and biased sample recounts. Blackwell dismissed most of the complaints as “partisan jibber-jabber” and asserted that none of the Election Day “glitches” were “of a conspiratorial nature, and none of them would have overturned or changed the election results.” Blackwell has, however, reignited the controversy by interpreting a new election law with rules on voter registration so restrictive they could halt most registration drives in Ohio. A coalition of six civic groups is suing on the ground that the law will disenfranchise poor and minority voters, and Democrats are protesting that Blackwell should not be overseeing his own election.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060731fa_fact1

Nor does this:

The Ohio election was marred by numerous irregularities, and whether Blackwell discharged his duties impartially and in accordance with the law remains a matter of dispute. Republicans defend his conduct, but Democrats and voting-rights advocates maintain that he deliberately suppressed the vote of Democrats and minorities. Dozens of lawsuits and official complaints were filed, and Representative John Conyers, Jr., of Michigan, and the Democratic staff of the House Judiciary Committee launched an investigation, fielding more than fifty thousand complaints from Ohioans. Blackwell’s rulings have thus far stood up in court, but Democrats, who point out that Blackwell simultaneously served as the honorary co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio, see a pattern of partisanship in his actions. A month before the registration deadline, Blackwell directed the County Boards of Elections to reject all voter-registration forms not printed on eighty-pound-stock paper. He rescinded the order three weeks later—even his own office didn’t have paper that heavy—but in the meantime many voters who tried to register could not.