Post by Noah on Apr 4, 2005 16:07:09 GMT -5
This is continuing from the comments following my blog entry "New Study Dismantles Exit Poll Mythology" (4/4/05).
SGT_E wrote:
If Kerry or Bush had been elected fairly and democratically, I wouldn't challenge the legitimacy of the election. If either of them took office through official misconduct -- twice -- I would. Do you really believe that "they still can't find a single one of those 'disenfranchised' voters?" There are thousands of testimonies to this, and they are readily available in the sources I have already mentioned. Those same sources effectively refute the myth that "the voting discrepancies still do not account for enough votes to get Kerry into office," but I am relieved to hear you concede that there were discrepancies.
You are half-right about 2000, but the important half is missing. A year after the election, the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, the Washington Post[/i], the St. Petersberg Times[/i], the Associated Press, and CNN unanimously agreed that if the Supreme Court had allowed the Florida recounts that were already in progress to continue, Bush still would have won the state; but if there had been a full state-wide recount, it would have been Gore. In other words, the majority of Floridia voters (like the majority of American voters) voted for Gore in 2000. This is what the above-cited consortium of newspapers decided after the actual ballots became available under the Sunshine Law. Why didn't this news get the attention it deserved? Because it came out right after 9/11.
If you ever do find evidence of Democratic vote-fraud, I'd like to know about it, and I'd consider it just as heinous the Republican equivalent. (I mean recent Democratic vote-fraud; no fair going back to Tammany Hall.)
SGT_E wrote:
I highly doubt you would be discussing this if Kerry had been elected. Stop whining about the elections. The fact is every recount in Florida showed Bush still would have won and they still can't find a single one of those "disenfranchised" voters the left has been screaming about. The voting discrepancies still do not account for enough votes to get Kerry into office. Besides that I can find plenty of proof of voter fraud by the Dems such as voting multiple times and so on.
If Kerry or Bush had been elected fairly and democratically, I wouldn't challenge the legitimacy of the election. If either of them took office through official misconduct -- twice -- I would. Do you really believe that "they still can't find a single one of those 'disenfranchised' voters?" There are thousands of testimonies to this, and they are readily available in the sources I have already mentioned. Those same sources effectively refute the myth that "the voting discrepancies still do not account for enough votes to get Kerry into office," but I am relieved to hear you concede that there were discrepancies.
You are half-right about 2000, but the important half is missing. A year after the election, the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, the Washington Post[/i], the St. Petersberg Times[/i], the Associated Press, and CNN unanimously agreed that if the Supreme Court had allowed the Florida recounts that were already in progress to continue, Bush still would have won the state; but if there had been a full state-wide recount, it would have been Gore. In other words, the majority of Floridia voters (like the majority of American voters) voted for Gore in 2000. This is what the above-cited consortium of newspapers decided after the actual ballots became available under the Sunshine Law. Why didn't this news get the attention it deserved? Because it came out right after 9/11.
If you ever do find evidence of Democratic vote-fraud, I'd like to know about it, and I'd consider it just as heinous the Republican equivalent. (I mean recent Democratic vote-fraud; no fair going back to Tammany Hall.)
