Did Bush Steal the Election?

  • Thread starter Seanman
  • 20 comments
  • 1,080 views
1,087
Seanman1
I read an interesting article in Rolling Stone, written by Robert Kennedy, Jr. He analyzed the statistical improbability that Bush would have won the 2004 election fairly.

Part of the article:

Like many Americans, I spent the evening of the 2004 election watching the returns on television and wondering how the exit polls, which predicted an overwhelming victory for John Kerry, had gotten it so wrong. By midnight, the official tallies showed a decisive lead for George Bush -- and the next day, lacking enough legal evidence to contest the results, Kerry conceded. Republicans derided anyone who expressed doubts about Bush's victory as nut cases in ''tinfoil hats,'' while the national media, with few exceptions, did little to question the validity of the election. The Washington Post immediately dismissed allegations of fraud as ''conspiracy theories,''(1) and The New York Times declared that ''there is no evidence of vote theft or errors on a large scale.''(2)

But despite the media blackout, indications continued to emerge that something deeply troubling had taken place in 2004. Nearly half of the 6 million American voters living abroad(3) never received their ballots -- or received them too late to vote(4) -- after the Pentagon unaccountably shut down a state-of-the-art Web site used to file overseas registrations.(5) A consulting firm called Sproul & Associates, which was hired by the Republican National Committee to register voters in six battleground states,(6) was discovered shredding Democratic registrations.(7) In New Mexico, which was decided by 5,988 votes,(8) malfunctioning machines mysteriously failed to properly register a presidential vote on more than 20,000 ballots.(9) Nationwide, according to the federal commission charged with implementing election reforms, as many as 1 million ballots were spoiled by faulty voting equipment -- roughly one for every 100 cast.(10)

The reports were especially disturbing in Ohio, the critical battleground state that clinched Bush's victory in the electoral college. Officials there purged tens of thousands of eligible voters from the rolls, neglected to process registration cards generated by Democratic voter drives, shortchanged Democratic precincts when they allocated voting machines and illegally derailed a recount that could have given Kerry the presidency. A precinct in an evangelical church in Miami County recorded an impossibly high turnout of ninety-eight percent, while a polling place in inner-city Cleveland recorded an equally impossible turnout of only seven percent. In Warren County, GOP election officials even invented a nonexistent terrorist threat to bar the media from monitoring the official vote count.(11)

Any election, of course, will have anomalies. America's voting system is a messy patchwork of polling rules run mostly by county and city officials. ''We didn't have one election for president in 2004,'' says Robert Pastor, who directs the Center for Democracy and Election Management at American University. ''We didn't have fifty elections. We actually had 13,000 elections run by 13,000 independent, quasi-sovereign counties and municipalities.''

But what is most anomalous about the irregularities in 2004 was their decidedly partisan bent: Almost without exception they hurt John Kerry and benefited George Bush. After carefully examining the evidence, I've become convinced that the president's party mounted a massive, coordinated campaign to subvert the will of the people in 2004. Across the country, Republican election officials and party stalwarts employed a wide range of illegal and unethical tactics to fix the election. A review of the available data reveals that in Ohio alone, at least 357,000 voters, the overwhelming majority of them Democratic, were prevented from casting ballots or did not have their votes counted in 2004(12) -- more than enough to shift the results of an election decided by 118,601 votes.(13) (See Ohio's Missing Votes) In what may be the single most astounding fact from the election, one in every four Ohio citizens who registered to vote in 2004 showed up at the polls only to discover that they were not listed on the rolls, thanks to GOP efforts to stem the unprecedented flood of Democrats eager to cast ballots.(14) And that doesn’t even take into account the troubling evidence of outright fraud, which indicates that upwards of 80,000 votes for Kerry were counted instead for Bush. That alone is a swing of more than 160,000 votes -- enough to have put John Kerry in the White House.(15)

''It was terrible,'' says Sen. Christopher Dodd, who helped craft reforms in 2002 that were supposed to prevent such electoral abuses. ''People waiting in line for twelve hours to cast their ballots, people not being allowed to vote because they were in the wrong precinct -- it was an outrage. In Ohio, you had a secretary of state who was determined to guarantee a Republican outcome. I'm terribly disheartened.''

Indeed, the extent of the GOP's effort to rig the vote shocked even the most experienced observers of American elections. ''Ohio was as dirty an election as America has ever seen,'' Lou Harris, the father of modern political polling, told me. ''You look at the turnout and votes in individual precincts, compared to the historic patterns in those counties, and you can tell where the discrepancies are. They stand out like a sore thumb.''

Full article: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen

Discuss.
 
I think it's very possible, but I don't think we would ever find out the truth. It's like politician calling another politician a liar. There are just too much B.S. to sort through.

Also, I would never take something Robert Kennedy Jr. wrote in the Rolling Stones to heart.
 
Also, I would never take something Robert Kennedy Jr. wrote in the Rolling Stones to heart.
Thirded. For some reason, we've found ourselves with a free RS subscription. I have to say their 'news' coverage is laughably transparent in how one-sided it is - and was 20 years ago, when I actually subscribed.
 
Also, I would never take something Robert Kennedy Jr. wrote in the Rolling Stones to heart.
Excellent point.

Get over the election...it's over.
Another good point. 👍

Btw, it's common knowledge voting machines only work for republicans. :rolleyes:
 
Btw, it's common knowledge voting machines only work for republicans. :rolleyes:

DUH!

Except of course when Clinton owned Bush senior for his first term.
 
First of all, the overseas ballots are typically biased in favor of republicans because lots of overseas ballots come from the military. If there was a mixup there, it was obviously orchestrated by the democrats.

There are always a large number of people who don't manage to get registered to vote. The fault lies with them. They need to take it upon themselves to get registered ahead of time so there are no last-minute screw-ups. And if some republicans were shredding democratic registrations, I'm sure the president himself ordered it, and I'm sure the democrats did no such shredding... because afterall we know that the party in power also controls all of the polls around the country and hand picks every single person running them.

The democrats focus heavily on ohio, because it was close and had it gone the other way it would have tipped the election in their favor. What isn't said, though, is that Pennsylvania (with a similar electoral weight) was CLOSER than ohio... but it went to Kerry.

Do the democrats claim fraud in Penn? No way, they won. Do the republicans claim fraud in Penn? No need, they won the election.

If Ohio had gone for Kerry, the republicans would have screamed for a recount in Pennsylvania, just as the democrats did in Ohio. The only thing is, they'd have been slightly more justified given that Penn. was signficiantly closer.

We did a recount in Ohio, it tipped the results even more in the republican's favor (I think the number quoted in the above article was pre-recount). If the recount in Ohio had gone for Kerry, a recount in Penn could even more easily have tipped the scales back for Bush.

...not to mention that Bush did win the popular vote his second time through. The democrats moaned on and on about getting the popular vote but not getting the presidency in 2000. They said things like "Bush didn't win the election" and "we didn't elect him" and "he stole the presidency". After '04, they suddenly became big fans of the electoral college. Overnight they changed their ways and wanted Kerry to win the electoral college without the popular vote.

Would the republicans have done the same in 2000 and '04 had the roles been exactly reversed (which would have been so easy given how close the elections were)? You bet! They'd have been all over Pennsylvania, and they'd have printed out bumper stickers saying "We didn't elect Gore, he sole the presidency! Blah Blah Blah".

To Bush haters, this will be evidence that he is an evil mastermind secretly fooling us all with his strategery. Had the roles been reversed, republicans would be convinced that Gore was part of a robotic army bent on world domination.

To me, it looks like a couple of close elections with volunteers/supporters/fanatics on both sides doing everything they can to win.
 
To me, it looks like a couple of close elections with volunteers/supporters/fanatics on both sides doing everything they can to win.

Isn't that what's called an election? :dopey:
 
To Bush haters, this will be evidence that he is an evil mastermind secretly fooling us all with his strategery.
Yet, he's also a complete idiot. :confused:

Unless an election is a landslide the losing side will always try and claim that it was stolen from them or someone was disenfranchised.

By the way, what issue of Rolling Stone did this come out in? I mean, this is a two-year-old issue. Is this an old article or is Robert Kennedy Jr still whining over this?
 
Nope, it's in the current issue, or maybe the last one or two. Within a month or so of current.
 
Nope, it's in the current issue, or maybe the last one or two. Within a month or so of current.
OK, thanks. I didn't see a date on the article.

So, he is complaining about an election that happened nearly two years ago? I can understand trying to use this as a ploy to drum up some hatred for teh Republican party, but considering all the current political issues that he could use why did he go after this? I mean, there was a much better case to be made for the 2000 election and that didn't sway voters.

His basic premise is that the early exit polls showed Kerry winning in a landslide and because that isn't how it turned out he wanted to find out why they were so wrong. His conclusion: Bush cheated. Not the fact that exit polls represent .0000000001% of voters and only those that wish to talk about how they voted. I am sure the anti-Bush people walked up with chests puffed out proclaiming that they voted for Kerry. Combine that with the fact that early exit polls are reported so early anymore, because media outlets want to be the first to announce the winner, that people who didn't plan to vote could easily have heard that their candidate is going to lose and decided to go vote in hopes of changing the early results.

I could probably ramble on about the folly of trusting exit polls, or any poll for that manner, but this will be enough.

Robert Kennedy jr needs to get on the proper political train or get over something that won't change. This is the first time I have heard a supposedly intelligent person try and convince the world of this. Everyone else I have heard talk like this also talk about chupacabra.
 
I firmly believe that with an election as close as the one between George Bush and John Kerry, both sides are going to do anything they can to win. I don't doubt for a second that parties on both sides had inside vote counters who discarded the opposing parties votes. It's politics and it's ruthless.

Can't blame Bush over Kerry for the fact that he won the election. Bush just may be a better vote shaver than Kerry was. We'll never know.
 
Get over the election...it's over.

Exactly, over 2 entire years ago. It's over, set in stone, and nothing can change what's been done, so any hubub is pointless, and whining only shows inability to move on and deal with something for which nothing further can be done. Besides, the Rolling Stone is not exactly known for its stimulating, neutral political discussion. It's about as opinionated and biased as media can possibly get.
 
As it's nearly time to vote again, who cares?
Besides, George W, like any good Texan didn't stoop to "stealing the election.
He had his daddy buy it for him.:lol:
 
Gil
As it's nearly time to vote again, who cares?
Besides, George W, like any good Texan didn't stoop to "stealing the election.
He had his daddy buy it for him.:lol:

:lol: 👍 You do have a point there too.
 
I noticed this the first time, but only now have decided to speak about it.

Why the heck is everyone making such a big deal out of this thread? The majority of you keep saying that whatever is said makes no difference and variants of that. Yeah, that's true. Do all of you have to be so damn negative about it though? I think everyone here knows that even if the election was rigged that it wouldn't change a thing 2+ years later. Nobody said that changing the results was their intention. Can't a discussion about politics just be a civil discussion just once?

Proceed now on telling me how wrong I am or whatever it is most people here do when they disagree with someone. Seddy... Ret... Go!
 
I'm not sure how Ohio being so disorganized as to not have polling places ready for the electorate, and not even able to properly inform the electorate of the proper polling place, has anything to do with stealing an election.

Florida, of course, is famous for the recount-after-recount in 2000. (From the democrats, perhaps Gore himself: "What are we telling our children if we say that their votes are not going to be counted?" Answer: "If they can't read and follow directions, they can't function in society.") But if any single polling place ever had anybody wait for 12 hours, heads would roll. I, personally, have never had to do more than park the car, walk in, vote, and leave, in ANY election since I first registered and voted against Jimmy Carter.

And even if, as Jr. claims, democrats were prevented from voting by one technicality or another, that's both parties' right to monitor the legality of the registration/polling process. Finding "invalid" registrations may have actually been exactly that, rather than stacking the polls by "preventing" democrats from casting a ballot. Could it be that the democrats are finger-pointing because they were busted stacking the registrations? Hmm?

My only serious point here is the first paragraph. Ohio had a SERIOUS problem with its polling organization, for one reason or another. Hopefully heads have rolled and it will be better next time. (Supervisor of Elections is itself an elected position in Florida counties, can't speak for Ohio.)

AAaarrr!
 
Why the heck is everyone making such a big deal out of this thread?
Because it is a ridiculous article.

The majority of you keep saying that whatever is said makes no difference and variants of that. Yeah, that's true. Do all of you have to be so damn negative about it though?
Aren't we always? :sly:

Nobody said that changing the results was their intention.
Then what was the intention? Answer: To sway current young voters based on a dead issue from two years ago, thus making it nothing more than pointless, political bull.

Can't a discussion about politics just be a civil discussion just once?
While I can't speak for others, nor do I know if you were even referring to me, I was attacking Robert Kennedy Jr's tactics behind his reasons for writing the article and the reasoning he used to defend his position. That is good debating and I thought it was done in a pretty civil manner.

Proceed now on telling me how wrong I am or whatever it is most people here do when they disagree with someone. Seddy... Ret... Go!
Um, well I won't try telling you how wrong you are but I will explain why I disagree. In all honesty, do you think that the article was intended to present civil political discussion or to fire up young voters by making them feel that the Republicans stole the election and causing them to want to make sure they get through all the paperwork properly so they can go vote Democrat?

Call me negative all you want, but I haven't seen honest civil political discussion from a Kennedy in my lifetime (27 years).
 
I read an interesting article in Rolling Stone, written by Robert Kennedy, Jr. He analyzed the statistical improbability that Bush would have won the 2004 election fairly.

Part of the article:



Full article: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen

Discuss.


Someone with alot of time on his hands and high on mushrooms and Jack Daniels during a crystal meth binge , comes up with a stupid conspiracy / theory/ speculation / practical impossibility..and the Rolling stoned print it and the usual group of bush haters buy it ...the rest of us either ignore it like the rest of the garbage..or laugh our collective butts off...or both.

What is there actually to discuss ? really now ??

How about ..democrats are so pissed off they couldnt beat Bush that they are actually making crap up ?

Or reality for Democrats and liberals sucks so baaaaad they must rationalise and imagine things just to keep from slashing their wrist .:)
 
Back