WHY DO ALL THE ANOMALIES, IRREGULARITIES AND GLITCHES ALLWAYS FAVOR BUSH?

[TruthIsAll]

THAT IS THE ONLY QUESTION WHICH NEEDS TO BE ASKED.

FORGET EVERYTHING ELSE.

FORGET THE 1 IN A ZILLION ODDS.
FORGET THE MOE.
FORGET THE "CLUSTER" EFFECT.
FORGET MITOFSKY.
FORGET THE EXIT POLLS.

JUST THAT ONE SINGLE MYSTERY.

WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE GIVE ME AN ANSWER?

I'LL EVEN PROMISE TO STOP POSTING.

[shraby]

1. Because..........

The election was rigged from the get-go. No other way to explain it.

[Goldeneye]

4. I think that pretty much covers it.

[berniew1]

26. GOP had a plan: systematic voter suppression of minorities & vote machine

fraud necessary parts of their plan:
http://northnet.org/minstrel/alpage.htm
http://www.flcv.com/fraudpat.html

[Jackpine Radical]

55. I thought maybe the answer was

divine intervention.

[RaulVB]

2. Impossible to explain

Those who want to deny that fraud took place don't even dare to talk about this "peculiar coincidence."

[wlubin]

3. Well, in law jargon, I believe they call it exhibit number one.

[candle_bright]

5. What's MOE? n/t

[shraby]

11. Margin of error.

[VTGold]

30. Oh - I thought it was momentum - that would be MO', huh?

[2Design]

6. i wonder the same thing = him being on time cover is disgusting

on cnn news tonight - in a poll bush is 23% popular over clinton for 8% and others behind that -

gag me with a spoon - I choke when I see this horrendous human being who is heartless

[evil genius]

7. didn't you know?

God wants him to be president at this time.

[RaulVB]

8. I forgot about that...

right!:crazy:

[zann725]

18. And "god" would be? That voice in the wire in his ear?

Sooo confusing it must be!

[Darknyte7]

48. There was definitely intervention involved...

but it certainly wasn't of the divine variety.

[berniew1]

9. Documentation of more fraud in Ohio

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/1046

and http://northnet.org/minstrel/alpage.htm

[Raster]

10. This truly is THE smoking gun. I've maintained all along that the

greatest evidence that the election was stolen was that each and every time there has been an anomaly, the result has always favored bush*. Forget all the periphery bullshit, most of which is designed to be a distraction and keep people chasing their tails. The odds that bush* is favored each and every time there is a variance are so astronomically high, well...consider this: The odds that bush* actually fairly won beating all variables is basically akin to you buying your first ever single MegaMillions ticket (odd: 1 in 135,000,000) and hitting the jackpot. You then at some point in the future buy another single ticket and again hit the jackpot. The chance of that happening for all practical purposes, is impossible.

[bmoney07]

52. thing is he has hit the jackpot about 31,000 times give or take a lottery

[Raster]

59. Exactly. If you examine the phenomenal bush* performance LOGICALLY,

it is plain as day that there is no way bush* legally and lawfully won the election. The thing the bush* group is playing on is that the case against bush* is circumstantial, plenty of evidence suggesting or supporting fraud, but as of yet, no uber-tangible evidence. I believe that a concerted effort will eventually turn up said evidence, but the bush* junta believes that if it makes it to (1) certification and then (2) inauguration they are home free. Worked for them last time.

[deacon2]

12. Because Jesus chose him to be our president

Anything that contradicts this is simply the work of Satan and must be ignored. In fact, anything that contradicts what I believe is the work of Satan and must be ignored. Keep repeating this until you believe it too. I like to sing it like a hymn while I clean my guns. You should also know that the earth is flat and was created six thousand years ago. Dinosaur bones are Satan's deception, as is carbon dating. Homosexuals choose to be that way in defiance of God's will that we only stick our genitals together in prescribed ways. Anyone who contradicts God's choice for president commits blasphemy and is in danger of losing their immortal soul. Up is down. 2 + 2 = 9. There is no gravity, the earth sucks.

Has this answer helped you?

[TruthIsAll]

14. Does God play dice with the universe? n/t

.

[bleever]

19. We have it on good advice that he probably doesn't...

but we also know that when it comes to gambling, don't bet against the Devil.

:evilgrin:

[Pooka Fey]

17. Don't forget that the "Rapture" is imminent. Which is why we need to kill

all the Iraqis now. We can use up all the oil in the mideast to drive to church in our Hummers, and then float to heaven in a cloud knowing that we didn't leave any loose ends untied during our time on earth.

[euler]

13. It may be because irregularities experienced by someone...

...who voted for the declared winner of a election contest, (especially one that is very close,) has no real incentive to report ANOMALIES, IRREGULARITIES and GLITCHES. They might be overjoyed that there guy won and the last thing on their mind is to file a complaint. Complaints take time, so why would they ? NOTE: 87% of all complaints came on the day following the election, when the results were known.

Please note that I am not a psychologist, but don't pooh-pooh this idea without input from one. There is much human behavior that does not make sense to us, but it exists anyway - for example, the Stockholm syndrome.

It's just a thought.

[Yupster]

15. When I was in college, a professor showed us a study

on the Bermuda Triangle of all things.

It listed the stats of all the unusual things that happened in the Bermuda Triangle.

Then these grad students made three other equally sized 'control' Bermuda Triangles around the world in similar types of climate and waters.

Their astounding discovery was that just as many weird things happened in all four triangles.

No one had ever listed and compiled the things that happened in the other places, and the media didn't cover them if they were news.

Meanwhile you have thousands of boaters and hundreds of reporters who know about the Bermuda Triangle so every weird or seemingly weird event that happens there gets publicized.

[DoYouEverWonder]

27. This is not about complaints

It is about the fact that every 'discrepancy' that has turned up, like oh gee we just found a bunch of ballots that we forgot to count, have all reversed results that had originally favored Bush. If there had been no manipulation or rigging the ratio would more likely be 50/50 or close to tha, rather than the almost 100% ratio that we keep finding.

[El Vengedor]

31. So how would you know?

Assuming there were irregularities that favored Kerry, how would you know about them? Who would report them given they would make no difference in the outcome? Do you think they would show up here?

I believe irregularities occur in every election and both sides do whatever they think they can get away with. I've been voting for more than 30 years and the only complaints I've ever seen have come from the losing side. For that reason, I'm not surprised that the only irregularities to have surfaced favor Bush.

[DoYouEverWonder]

32. Because I have been researching the results

I have print outs of every county and most of the precincts in FL. I have downloaded every news report that has been published about the irregularities in FL and I've spoken to 3 different Supervisors of Elections and that's just for a start.

Every irregularity has favored Bush, which is a statistical impossibility.

[Raksha]

70. If there were irregularities that favored Kerry....

...the FREEPERS would report them! They would love nothing more than to play their famous "equivalence" game, and if they could find two irregularities that favored Kerry, they would play them for a lot more than they could ever be worth. They'd wave them in our faces day and night and Drudge and Limbaugh would go on and on about them forever. They would spare no effort to try and make those two incidents cancel out 100 others that favor Bush.

As a matter of fact, a couple of kool-aid drinkers on my home board did just that. They found out about a couple of Democrats convicted of election fraud (I don't remember the exact circumstances) and posted a thread about it. These folks are still gloating over Dan Rather and that famous forged(?) memo that contained accurate information about Shrub's days in TANG.

If they could find a few splinters to (in their minds) "balance" that big log in their eyes, I promise you we'd never hear the end of it.

[Chasing Dreams]

16. BECAUSE ROVE AND * RIGGED IT.

But you already knew that.

Now I have one question for you, TIA. If Kerry is AWOL on January 6th, what are you going to do? Are you going to change your party affiliation? If yes, will help lead the effort here? A lot of people will listen...

[bleever]

20. A sailor's response: "Cap'n! I dinna know about these anamollies

or gilchies of which ye speak, but the ship sir, she's leanin' the feck over!"

edit: punc.

[BrotherBuzz]

21. As my old Pappy used to say....

"Son, luck ain't got nothing to do with it." - Bret Maverick

[platinumman]

22. Stop shouting and listen,

If you are talking about the exit polls, it is simply because the precincts polled in each state tended to go for Kerry more than in the precincts which were not polled.

I do wish you would stop shouting, but as you never do stop shouting, I will shout too:

ALL VOTERS WERE NOT CHOSEN RANDOMLY. PRECINCTS WERE CHOSEN FIRST. PRECINCTS WERE ALSO NOT CHOSEN RANDOMLY. THIS IS NORMAL PREDICTIVE POLLING PROCEDURE.

EVEN IF PRECINCTS WERE CHOSEN RANDOMLY, PRECINCTS DIFFER SO MUCH FROM EACH OTHER, THAT THE POPULATION MAY NOT BE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE TOTAL POPULATION

(All this easily discovered from the Mitofsky web page)

Mitofsky says that the precincts were chosen according to a predetermined formula, and predictions could be made after considering what was known about those precincts. This formula was likely to have been the same for each state, and therefore most states would show the same apparent bias in the poll data.

Basically, this is a double layer of sampling. They sample the precincts, and then they sample the voters in those precincts. The latter procedure is random, the former is not. If you want to do mathematical calculations, you MUST.. I shall repeat MUST first calculate the probability of the precincts being representative of the population as a whole. Due to the structure of precincts, with many small ones, and a few large ones, it would be very difficult to get a group that would be 100% representative, and the likelihood is that urban precincts will predominate. Mitofsky would know this perfectly well, and would be able to deal with it mathematically when making predictions.

However YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW THE PRECINCTS WERE CHOSEN, and therefore your calculations are worthless. If you happen to know even which precincts were chosen, perhaps you could let us in on the secret, as there are thousands of anxious statisticians all ready to begin. (actually, I don't think that would be too difficult to find out, but what we really need to know is what Mitofsky knows about those precincts, and why they were chosen)

If you still think voters were chosen randomly, have a look at the number of people polled and just ask yourself how they would possibly do it in a state like California. It would have meant sending somebody out to every precinct and canvassing every two hundred voters or so (probably even fewer than that: I don't have the figures with me). Some precincts are so small and remote that you would have to hire someone just to canvas a couple of voters all day. Obviously far too expensive.

The sad thing is that the final figures may well indicate fraud. However, nonsensical and incomplete calculations only serve to distract us from the importance of the real thing.

I very much doubt if you have read this far, but if you have, Happy New Year. Perhaps your New Year Resolution might be to stop shouting. Thank you.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DELUSIONAL]

42. TIA -- seems like you're calling "them" out

In a real election where the results aren't rigged to favor Der dictator -- glitches would break evenly for each candidate. Elections are run by humans and humans do make mistakes -- plus there are so many different voting systems, ballots, local rules (plus untrained and unqualified and inexperienced election staff) that glitches are bound to happen.

Problem is that ALL (with maybe one exception that was quickly found and corrected) glitches and oopses have been in buhsie's favor.

Be assured that "their side" is actively looking for glitches and any and all would have been reported.

Rove thinks he committed the perfect crime -- but the criminals always leave behind something of themselves. In his effort to make bushie appear to have won the popular vote Rove had to pull out all the stops -- and he didn't consider the, shall we call it -- the law of the glitch effect -- which should break 50/50 for each candidate.

As someone else said -- THIS is the smoking gun.

More than anything I believe that seeing all glitches break in bushies favor made a whole lot of people with analytical skills start looking at the numbers -- the math of the election.

The other smoking gun -- the EXIT POLLS. For all the reasons TIA and others have listed.

The preponderance of evidence is pilling up to provide circumstantial evidence that vote fraud happened in several states.

As a Genealogist I'd have to say that there is enough circumstantial evidence to say that Rove and Bush are married and that their child is Election Fraud.

[fasttense]

25. Then why are Exit Polls used for other countries?

Why are Exit Polls considered reliable indicators of voting outcomes in Ukraine or Mexico or Argentina? Why is it just in the US Exit Polls are considered unreliable? Why can't the most powerful country in the world get accurate exit polls for ten million dollars?

If from the start the precincts were wrong, then why can't they figure it out for the US but can do it for other countries?

[TruthIsAll]

33. We had reliable exit polls from unreliable pollsters. Kerry WON...

but then the reliable exit polls had to be rigged after evryone went to sleep in order to match the rigged vote count.

It is very clear what happened by now.

This election was hijacked by fascist thugs.

Can't say we at DU were surprised.

[s-cubed]

38. But if the exit polls were from poorly chosen precincts, etc.,

as you claim, why is Mitofsky considered to be the best exit pollster in the world? Why does he do exit polls all over the world to detect fraud? But mostly, why won't he and his clients release the data?

[euler]

58. The primary purpose of exit polls is not to detect fraud.

Some exit polls can be used to detect fraud, but exit polls in the US are not random, so the type of analysis done here on DU by TIA and others prove exactly nothing. However, in Germany, exit polls *are* random samples and the numbers can be useful for spotting fraud. Go here for more:

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/12/what_about_thos.html

So why are exit polls conducted in the US, if not for fraud detection ? In the US, the data is used to answer questions such as "What percentage of the Hispanic vote did Kerry receive in the upper Midwest ?" These types of questions can be asked, and reliably answered even if the sample is not random. However, a lot of adjustments to the numbers have to be made before the data makes sense.

[mgr]

40. I don't think this is about exit polls, but what you define is a cluster.

Each precinct chosen, should ideally represent a cluster of similar minded voters from similar circumstances. So one should select one precinct that clusters democrats, one that clusters republicans. You should be able to do this from registration records, but what can undermine this would be demographic changes, such as deaths or in-migration of groups different from the dominant cluster. The sample design of the exit polls should appropriate balance these, but the characterization of a precinct as a predetermined cluster relies on the census as well as registration, as well as past voting behavior. So, the further away in time you are from the census, the potential for your precinct to mirror a cluster lessens. This would be why one needs to update the sample design, and may support in part, the delay in the release of the exit poll data.

Mike

[Emillereid]

23. That's probably the most compelling case for 'intention' behind all

the glitches; it's the mother of all anomalies. Random error would show no favorites. I think the odds against all the anomalies breaking for Bush would approach infinity!

[1democracy]

29. The chosen one

Let's take a different viewpoint--
What would you feel like if you you were taking a class that you never attended, never read the book, never studied for the final. You get your grades and you got an "A". It would seem like a miracle, that God had chosen you, that the laws of the universe had all been tipped in your favor ---of course by God. You would feel "chosen" "anointed", for some higher purpose... I believe that is how * views his win, despite exit polls, despite the economy, his poor performance in the debates, the war in Iraq. Any one of these should have defeated him:
He believes he is "chosen", which he was-- just not by the people and not by God.
The law of the universe is Truth, and that cannot be forever thwarted. Eventually it will emerge. THAT is unequivocal. The impossible odds will lead to the truth concealed.

[Emillereid]

39. Of course that kind of delusional thinking is what makes Bush

so particularly dangerous. The miracle man -- or to paraphrase Begala: Bush is a guy who was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple!

[48pan]

28. It's Rove

He's been honing his cheating skills for years.

[1democracy]

34. Probabilities suggest...

I know some don't want to hear more statistics, but the probabilities you have given for separate (supposedly independent occurrences) to have all occurred together are the product of the probabilities (1/1667 x 1/333 x1/135,000 x 1/13.5 trillion x 1/ 282 billion), which is so fleetingly small as to approach zero meaning that there is almost no chance that they were random events. If they weren't random that means they were influenced. If they were influenced, that means they were fixed or manipulated in a particular direction. Manipulating the results of an election in a particular direction is known as election FRAUD.

It is more probable that a meteor will land on your house: 182,138,880,000,000 to 1 than that these election abnormalities were due to chance alone(odds from http://www.funny2.com/odds.htm)

However, probabilities don't prove fraud, they only suggest it. Specific evidence must be obtained.

[Cocoa]

35. yet another false premise

and yet again, you see no need to provide any evidence for your assertion, and yet again, you don't even acknowledge that you are making an assertion.

[The Gigmeister]

36. Is there a 99.95% chance you'll stop posting?

[Duncan]

37. TruthIsAll please look at this thread (yet another anamoly for Bush)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x197869

Maybe you have already.

[mgr]

41. What are you talking about?

I think this thread is dishonest, and trying to play on emotions rather than intellect.

I would not recommend combining the patterns observed with election day discrepancies with the apparent exit polling anomaly. The discrepancies at various polling locations going to bush on all accounts is one thing, the exit polls something else, they should not be conflated. I agree the pattern appears overwhelmingly abnormal in the first case, but I am not convinced we know what we are talking about in the second.

As a contrary example, how many more votes did Kerry gain with the discovered King County (WA) absentee ballots?

Of course, all our observations are subject to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, we may select the phenomena we want to observe.

Let's not make this the new Lincoln versus Kennedy coincidence theory.

Mike

[TruthIsAll]

43. he one-sided anomalies/glitches to Bush are CONFIRMED by the exit polls!

It's very clear and simple.

Like love and marriage.
Machine "glitches" and unexplained poll discrepancies.
You can't have one without the other.

Few machines,long lines in black precincts and unexplained poll discrepancies.
You can't have one without the other.

An SOS who won't be interviewed and bogus recounts.
You can't have one without the other.

Why fog the facts with arcane spin and doubletalk?

[mgr]

44. Pretty ascientific argument

I don't think you realize how serious this is, and why I take issue with your position.

Let's go at your argument this way:

If the exit polls are correct and indicative of fraud then fraud should have occurred elsewhere than Ohio and Florida. Yet, pretty much all your examples are from Ohio. You are arguing from two instances to a universal that applies to fifty-one. Does not fly in logic, and does not fly here. A lawyer would have a field day with this.

Now lets go at this a little tighter:

Machine glitches, this is probably the smoking gun for fraud if there is intent, I will leave this one to stand. However, I am not sure of the number or extent of these, whether they remained in the official tally, and if it impacted a sufficiently large enough portion of the population that a significant difference between the exit polls and election results would occur.

Long waits in lines, few machines, and voter intimidation in black precincts will not be evident in exit polls because the exit poll samples those that voted. This is fraud, but would not be evident in exit polls.

It isn't that Blackwell will not be interviewed, it is that he will not be deposed on this matter, and it is not a refusal. One can appreciate his position since the arcane election laws of Ohio may put him in a no win position, of having recommended an action but another statutes states the opposite.

The recount was not bogus. A recount is undertaken to correct faulty counting, not uncover fraud. One may question how it was performed, and that Ohio statute gives unclear direction as to how it may be conducted as to what a 3% random sample might be, or what the role of elections technicians should be. It would be up to the court to determine whether these actions were faulty, but in the spirit on consistency, would you like the 80lb bond requirement upheld as well?

A good scientific argument is able to take the best opposing argument, design the relevant test that will either refute or confirm that hypothesis. You do none of this, and it will not stand a court room test. What you have done is close to sophistry, and seems to confuse correlation with causation.

Mike

[RaulVB]

47. Reality calling!

The US government DEMANDED NEW ELECTIONS in Georgia and Ukraine based on discrepancy between exit polls and "actual results."

Simple, as usual, when the truth is evident.

Now, you are obviously playing blind here!

[mgr]

54. Elaborate please, have not been following Ukraine that close

Was of the impression that opposition candidate poisoned with Dioxin, and the Government's motives in challenging the election results aren't necessarily pure.

Not sure at all what you are saying in last two sentences, I don't usually rely upon religious visions to obtain the truth, or leaps of faith, but find it requires a hell of a lot of hard work to ferret out. I may believe that there is fraud, but I have to prove it, and I use my reason, and the training I received in using it--at least that is what I thought my education was about.

Explain what I am missing if I am blind?

My opinion is that you (and others) are leading with your emotions rather than your reason, and it is reason that carries the day. Without it we are just fodder for the republicans. My distaste for the tenor of discussion here, and in a lot of TIA's recent threads is that it smacks of demagoguery, appeal to the scientific ignorance of most Americans; and distract attention from the more salient and important work that is going on. What is it that is new about this thread, really? (other than the fact that Tia's method is getting the scrutiny it so desperately deserves, so we don't look like complete fools)

Don't get me wrong, I find his work with the exit polling data interesting, but not compelling. And let's not reply with anymore of this intellectual laziness, or attempts at ad hominem attacks.

Mike

In both war and politics, it is the impatient that are the first casualties. Take your outrage to the streets and see who follows, I would rather back the court case.

[RaulVB]

60. Well, well...

If you want to be part of a conversation you should educate yourself first, IMO.

Otherwise, to talk just because you want to "destroy" a thesis that does not suit your "intellectual curiosity" or "self-declared expertise" is quite unfair and even rude for the readers of your posts.

I usually don't talk if I have nothing to say.

Old and good habit I learned very young...

[Chimpanzee]

69. Go back to freeperville, Mike.

[bleever]

45. Kick for the power and inspiration of TIA's work.

:thumbsup:

[keepthemhonest]

46. ok

and for bleever for bleevin

[dogindia]

49. yes

[myschkin]

50. These are proofs

I think Kerry could fight with them (along with the Exit Poll discrepancy etc.) and take them as the proof for happened fraud.

Do all relevant people - Arnebeck, Conyers, Kerry... - know about this?

[bmoney07]

51. Because he choosen by God - why else would the Golden Child

be able to beat every odd known to man kind.

People just don't get it

We were Fucked over big time

And a message from the MSM - Nothing to see here just move along.

[ljm2002]

53. KICK

...because TIA isn't here to keep it going.

TIA if you're reading this, please do talk to the mods. I for one am very anxious to see you back posting here.

If you don't come back, then please find a way to let us know where we can find your continuing analyses.

Thanks.

[dogindia]

62. please

[senseandsensibility]

56. That's the billion dollar question!

And it's a question that isn't even attempted by the corporate media, because there is no answer! So they protect * by not asking the question!

[garybeck]

57. to get the answer

You'll need to put on your tin foil hat.

[Joe Chi Minh]

61. Divine Providence

(sarcasm).

Reminds me of an English barrister T F Smith, later Lord Birkenhead, who was holding forth, no doubt grandiloquently, but seemingly at great length, when he was interrupted by the Judge:

"Mr Smith. What do you think I am here for?"

"My lord, it is not for me to seek to fathom the inscrutable workings of Divine Providence." (Though if ever a man was likely to, I imagine it would surely have been Smith!)

[wiggs]

63. Even more clear in NY Senate race

I haven't heard anything in a couple of weeks on this, but in New York a hand recount of the senate race turned up MORE VOTES FOR THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE ON NEARLY EVERY MACHINE.

In other words, machine error broke for the republican nearly every time. This should have been enough for the FBI to swoop in and confiscate everything. But no.

Last I hear, this is tied up in court. My guess is that they didn't want this near-proof of tampering to taint the larger presidential election, damaging machine credibility.

It will be resolved after inauguration.

[The Judged]

66. Yes, in Yonkers. Every voting machine had its tamper lock tag broken!

Re-uglicans say this is normal!

[Peace Patriot]

64. Yeah, it's the cumulative effect...

...you steep yourself in these reports and, at some point, raise your head out of it, and realize that everything you've read says "favorable to Bush, default to Bush," never to Kerry. It's like you almost can't see it, when you're steeped in it.

And yeah, that's all you need to know--that, and who owns the source code as secret, proprietary information, that runs the machines that tabulate all our votes.

In truth, for me, the second thing is all I needed to know.

Kind of like when Sherlock Holmes gets a whiff of Professor Moriarty in London.

[bleever]

65. Easy to be distracted by figuring out exactly HOW impossible

it is that * won.

But we're past the point of needing to agree on the exact quantification.

We can just keep hammering with whatever rock or tool or story is close at hand.

"Mr. Mitofsky: Tear down this wall!"

hehehe

[The Judged]

67. The Democrats did it to tie up the election in litigation, remember?

Re-uglicans were tossing this theory around before Election Day 2004.

[Chimpanzee]

68. Because God willed it? Because * is lucky? No?.....