On June 2, Rolling Stone published a lengthy article by Robert J. Kennedy, Jr., “Was the 2004 Election Stolen?” That article echoes the title of a book that Steven F. Freeman and I have written that has just been published by Seven Stories Press, Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen? Exit Polls, Election Fraud, and the Official Count. We provided… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (462)From not allowing absentee votes to be counted to utilizing fraudulent voter registrations, to requesting only specific counties to have a vote recount, how can the democrats still claim the election was stolen? Hanging Chads? Do they think that all voters are under educated hicks? The idea that the election was stolen is passe and legally proven misguided. Quit whining and find a good candidate to back. The current crop from both parties is pathetic. Mental midgets all. Thank God Bush is a lame duck, and thank God Kerry or Gore didn’t get the nod.
That’s one Vets opinion.
Posted by americanirish70 on Aug 23, 2006 at 2:34 PM I’d guess Iran is not going to be a pushover, far from it. I’d suggest their combination of Nationalism and Islamic faith, are what has made them such an historically hard nut to crack.
Dear Rabbit,
More likely the lack of any rules of engagement.
Posted by anti-rabbit on Aug 23, 2006 at 3:03 PM american irish70… you’re a little late in this discussion… and, yes,
we are “under” educated hicks. The South rose and put us under their thumbs, their heels, their oil money and corrupt cronyism.
This discussion was over long ago. So now who is the whiner? You gotta back up your “legalise” talk with facts, not those same ole’ conservative talking points. Saying something is legal does not make it so. Go home.
Posted by sallyb36 on Aug 24, 2006 at 6:09 PM I truly enjoy the lively rhetoric spewed forth throughout this post ...A few personal thoughts that have led to countless hours of research,still without answers,I will now put forth to every individual reading this...I will even go as far as offering a “bounty"for the persons able to answer these questions....and there are only two,and will be phrased in the simplest manner possible...QUESTION # 1...WHO IS ON THE BOARD OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE,BY NAME? QUESTION #2...HOW CAN ANY ELECTION BE CALLED FAIR AND IMPARTIAL WITHOUT THE VOTERS NAMES AND VOTES BEING PUBLISHED FOR ALL TO SEE,WHEREBY ANY AND ALL DISCREPANCIES CAN BE CONFRONTED ?......................Hello?...................Still waiting....................As I thought, NOBODY has the answers I am seeking,or if they do,they are not willing to risk retaliation for disclosing the truth...This only shows that the RE_EDUCATION of the people was successful,and for those who forget,History repeats itself,time and again.....AND YOU ARE STILL STUPID Enough to believe THAT YOUR VOTE MEANS SOMETHING? WAKE THE HELL UP AND REALIZE THAT YOUR RIGHTS ARE ONLY AN ILLUSION,YOUR VOICE IS NOT HEARD , AND THE SECOND CRUSADES ARE GOING FORTH ON FOREIGN SOIL....TO TOP IT OFF,WE NOW STAND WHERE ROME DID WHEN IT FELL,AS WELL AS WHERE THE FRENCH STOOD WHEN THEY DECIDED ENOUGH WAS ENOUGH WITH THE ARISTOCRATICS AND THEIR RAPING OF THE WORKING CLASS,FINACIALLY AS WELL AS MENTALLY
Posted by statesman on Aug 31, 2006 at 5:16 PM I understand the debate about the manner and means of exit polling and its accuracy as a tool for understanding election results. It seems to me that over the past two decades that exit polling in this country has demonstrated a reasonable validity as a reliable instrument of analysis. There have been, to my knowledge, no demonstrable trends towards disputing their usefulness or reliability for quite some time, including the use of the particular pollsters that are now in question (Mitofsky et al). That being the case, how does one explain the sudden disparity of results in the 2004 election? I’ve seen paper after rebuttal, and in the end, there is a clear sense that this set of numbers generated in 2004 was strangely skewed towards the Bush candidacy. Polls can have problems in small arenas; over the large arena, there is no indication whatsoever that this particular election was dealt with in a uniquely inept manner by the polling personnel, nor is there any sense that their modus was different from prior elections. If anything, the longevity of use and refining of exit polling should have made the results even more accurate. In sum: why this election? Other elections using the same methodology of exit polling showed none of the bizarre aberrations that we see in 2004.
Another thought: :
This particular election had an overwhelming documentation of voter disenfranchisement nation-wide, and especially in the three swing states, involving a variety of methods and means for altering the potential vote counts. I don’t think any temperant thinker can look at the machinations in Ohio and not be astonished at the lack of response nationally to what would have been a national cause celebre if the disenfranchised had been Republicans. The overall activity of Democratic and minority disenfranchisement via the means well researched by several reputable sources (the reader might be interested to travel through the litigation and investigations both past and current in Ohio) combined with the baffling exit poll numbers (as related to final vote counts) should be seen as a whole, and not as two separate issues. In fact, the latter cannot be understood or analyzed without the former. In short, the exit poll anomaly can only be understood as part of an overall set of aberrant and sub-legal activities. We seem to see people trying very hard to discredit these exit poll numbers by showing that it might be possible, under very unusual circumstances, to get poll results that are part of some range of possible statistical error. This is so obviously limited as an analytical technique that I am surprised it hasn’t been addressed more directly. Isolated analysis only deals with a limited data set. Behaviorally, humans are statiscally predictable in large units, while able to exhibit random behavior at the ‘micro’ scale. The 2004 election, both in relation to prior elections and the activities documented as corollary to the poll numbers, shows a singularity, a collapse of the possible realms of behavior. Do these ‘debunkers’ really expect us to believe that all of this was just a little horseplay? A bit of political chuckle? I am not a paranoid personality, nor do I read the National Enquirer. I’m boringly in the middle. But I’m not a fool. And, I am, for the first time in my six decades on earth, deeply alarmed by what has happened and what the future may bring. Those who airily wave their arms and glibly dismiss these misgivings terrify me.
Posted by wittgenstein on Sep 20, 2006 at 11:37 AM Hi Wittengenstein,
I have a decade on you and have expressed the same alarms and have been told “the dems lost and need to stop whining and get over it.” They don’t get it. It’s not about the dems losing it’s about the discrepancies, the oddities, the Ken Blackwell disenfrancising dealings here in Ohio.And yet, today, I was teaching an ESL class of 2nd generation American-Palestinian and American-Iraqi children about the U. S. Constitution and theirs and my 1st Amendment Rights. I gave it a good show but all the while my mind is whirling about how the “other side” would deny me my right to speak up about an election that had obvious flaws. “Get over it” doesn’t address the problems and doesn’t allow me those 1st amendment rights.
I have a real problem with those who will call me all manner of names for my beliefs and say that is in their “rights,” yet a legitimate petition regarding the 2004 election or a call upon my leaders, though it is a 1st amendment right , is treated like it is treason. There is something very amiss when dissention is considered a wrong. That’s how we broke from King George in 1776.
It was 11 years before our forefathers got together to write the Constitution and they wrote it in secrecy. In 5 1/2 years we have watched an attack on many of those rights, our democracy won’t last long if things continue as they are. Especially when I read where there are those who think we should have a one-party system. Yeah, sure… let big brother run your life for you. Small government (chuckle… chuckle...) no taxes (for corporation or the rich) All my average taxpaying friends should jump on the bandwagon for that tar baby! What was that song Tennessee Ernie Ford used to sing???? “I owe my soul to the company store...” That sure sounds like a real winner, I mean weiner…
Posted by sallyb36 on Sep 20, 2006 at 5:28 PM Hi Sal, busy , but following you’all when i can .
Wittgenstein, approaching 59 in a few days, and feeling pretty much the same way .
Pray God and keep your powder DRY !
Posted by frog on Sep 20, 2006 at 7:13 PM Thanks to Sally and Frog...I realized that these forums are the only way we have to keep our feet on sane ground. What has disturbed me over the past four or five years is the inexorable and ‘bottom-up’ manner in which the attack on democracy and the the separation of church and state has been implemented. Organizationally speaking, those responsible have been working at the grass-roots level, but within already established social niches, as, for example, the coffee group post-sermon at the local church, or in sports contexts, or within the precinct meetings of local politicos. This is a large-scale, well-planned and thought out campaign, not unlike any similar military campaign during wartime, for the removal of certain disparate elements and the substitution of a ‘cadre’, if I may, of, in Hoffer’s words, true believers. In Algeria, during the uprising against the French, the underground organized into groups that were small and isolated, except for one person who could contact other groups. By leaving the majority out of the loop, they were able to elude the interrogation issue, as most of their fighters were genuinely unable to supply information. To the extent that the corporate/religious right has mimicked this, I actually have to marvel. They are not dumb. Their ideas are the stuff of nightmares, but in terms of who we are dealing with, nobodies’ fools. We, on the other hand, also no dummies, are disorganized, naive, and in denial. The window of opportunity is very narrow.
Posted by wittgenstein on Sep 21, 2006 at 8:42 AM I was wondering. Could Tina1, Scorp, or Natalie actually be Ann Coulter? What are some thoughts out there?
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Nov 7, 2006 at 11:08 PM The problems with the 2000 and 2004 elections are small potatoes compared with this election. Obama-funded ACORN and other Democrat-leaning organizations are committing fraud on a massive scale. There are over 200,000 fraudulent voter registrations in Ohio alone and authorities there have already documented actual voter fraud. There was no voter fraud ever discovered in the 2000 and 2004 elections. President George W. Bush (PBUH) won those contests fair and square and don’t give me your conspiracy theory crap. You people know very well that when the Florida ballots were counted after the election in 2000 by Yale and the NY Times, President Bush had more votes. It’s just a fact. You bed-wetting liberal white-flag waving fems can bitch and complain all you want but PRESIDENT BUSH won. Yes, Barry will win this one thanks to the tanking economy. But isn’t funny how it takes a massive financial melt-down to convince Americans to vote for you pansies? If the economy hadn’t tanked in mid-Sep, McCain/Palin would still be on top. As it is, Barry still has to spend hundreds of millions just to get a little over half the vote. Enjoy it while it lasts libs. You’ve got a couple of years to work your liberal magic, but you know very well what happens whenever you libs start with your class warfare and socialism (remember 1980 and1994?). PEACE THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER!!!!! WAR EAGLE!!!!
Posted by War Eagle on Oct 25, 2008 at 7:06 PM War Eagle, Your delayed response to my comments in 2006 explain why you sound so bitter. You’ve been holding it back too long, sir.
When did you rewrite the history of the 2000 election? They stopped the election re-count in Florida and the U. S. Supreme Court appointed Bush president. Have you been Rip-Van-Wrinkling these two years?
I’m not going to continue to argue with a close-minded personl. I’ll choose a battle worth fighting for. Conservatives are that way, gung-ho with guns and war all the way and then blame a liberal when it all falls apart.
May God have mercy on your heart and soul. Live in peace, not war.
sallyb36
Posted by sallyb36 on Oct 25, 2008 at 9:26 PM A voice from the past . Good to see you SallyB !
Things have sure evolved since we last met .
Late now ............sleep. XX
Posted by frog on Oct 28, 2008 at 6:58 PM -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Joel Bleifuss
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2006 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
