The Democratic National Committee sent out this "Action Alert" begging for money to help steal the Washington gubernatorial race:
There are a number of remarkable things about this e-mail. First, as reader Brendan Vaughan pointed out:I need your immediate help. You've probably heard about the extremely close race for governor here in Washington. Only 42 votes separate my opponent and me, and thousands of ballots across the state haven't been counted.
This is by far the closest race in the history of our state, and one of the closest the nation has ever seen. That means we must make sure that every single legitimate ballot has been counted -- and that means a statewide manual recount of every vote.
Washington state law requires the party requesting the recount to pay for it, and it will cost at least $750,000. The Democratic Party is committed to this recount, but they need your immediate donation today to make it happen. Please give today.Let me put this race in a little more perspective. Out of nearly 3 million votes cast, only 42 votes separate my Republican opponent and me. That's a difference of 0.0014 percent. The error for voting machines is somewhere between 1 and 2 percent, or 1,000 times as great as the vote difference.That means that this race is tied, and anything is possible with a manual recount. We must count every vote individually, and we can't do it without you.
Do not let this election slip through our fingers. We are only 42 votes away from victory in Washington, and we are confident that once all the votes are counted, we will win this race. Please help us reach this urgent goal by making a donation today!
To me, it is amusing that the DNC says they are 42 votes away from a victory. In fact, they are 42 votes away from a TIE!Another thing I find remarkable is the claim that "thousands of ballots across the state haven't been counted". Really? Where are they? And why weren't they counted?
Which is interesting considering they keep telling us that this race - where Dino Rossi was certified as Governor-Elect yesterday - is a tie.
Finally, also remarkable is the claim that "The error for voting machines is somewhere between 1 and 2 percent". Yesterday on the John Carlson Show I heard WA Democratic spokeswoman Kirstin Brost claim that the error for voting machines was between 1 and 3 percent. Make up your minds. Is it 2 percent or 3 percent? And more importantly, what exactly does this mean and what studies do they have to back up this claim? 1% of the number of votes cast comes to nearly 29,000 votes. So I find this claim to be somewhat implausible. I don't expect anybody in the media to challenge the Democrats on this sort of thing. So I called Kirstin Brost myself in order to get to the bottom of this. I'd be surprised if she actually returns my call, but if she does, I'll let you know what she says.
UPDATE: Kirstin Brost hasn't called me back yet, but an official from the Secretary of State's office has. The Democrats' claim of a 1 to 3 percent error rate on voting machines has been debunked, discarded and, frankly, exposed as pure horseshit. See above for details.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at December 01, 2004 10:38 AM | Email ThisYou have to think like they do to figure that out. See, they say "thousands of ballots across the state haven't been counted." Then later on they say that "The error for voting machines is somewhere between 1 and 2 percent." In their twisted "logic" they put the assumed machine error rate together with the total number of votes cast to arrive with certainty at the conclusion that thousands of valid votes were ignored by the machines, and therefore not counted.
Ouch. It hurts my brain to think like a Democrat.
Posted by: Skor Grimm on December 1, 2004 11:15 AM"We called on Democrats last week to do the right thing and pay for a statewide count, not cherry-pick counties in which they expect to glean votes. Presuming Gregoire could win ultimately, she still must be able to govern. And governing requires public trust. Funding hand recounts in a few counties presumed to produce favorable results would, if the lead changes in Gregoire's favor, merely trigger a taxpayer-funded hand recount in all the other counties. That likely would leave a bad taste in the mouths of many voters. Worse, it could lend unwarranted gravitas to so-far scurrilous allegations of a "stolen" election."
If the P-I would say THAT, we should be RAISING HELL about it. But hey, that's just me.
Posted by: P. Scott Cummins on December 1, 2004 11:28 AMIf 42 votes is a tie, how much of a lead does Gregoire need to be able to claim victory? Where's the line?
Posted by: South County on December 1, 2004 11:54 AM
Did the Dems REALLY mean to say that?
One might say that such a statement comes a little too close to an admission by the Dems that they had long ago made up their minds that they had won the election--regardless of the vote count.
When one operates with the presupposition that their own candidate is the winner, a winning vote tally becomes something you must manufacture after the votes are cast, not an impartial counting of ballots. Keep in mind that the Gregoire campaign was supremely confident in their victory prior to election and that the recent "Action Alert" reiterates the Dems' confidence of her victory. One could well argue that their minds are made up.
It is like saying "We know in our hearts that Chris won...we just have to make sure the vote count reflects that." But is THAT any way to run an election we can have confidence in?
Rossi, on the other hand, has a victorious count and a re-count under his belt. He was certified the winner. Those are facts not based upon conjecture or wishful thinking.
Given the Dems' demonstrated concern for Gregoire votes alone, her campaign's claim to the "count every vote" mantle is disappearing fast. It is a ship sinking fast in public opinion. It's time for Gregoire to abandon ship and concede this thing.
Posted by: Seth Cooper on December 1, 2004 12:39 PMAccording to the Democrats stray marks in Montana don't count ("don't count every vote"), but stray marks here in Washington do count ("count every vote").
It's also fun to watch the Republicans fight for the Constitution Party candidate after their candidate ended up a rather distant third. Had the Republican dropped out the Constitution Party candidate probably would have won handily, making the Republican the spoiler in the race. So who is the third party?
I believe that if there is any question on a ballot it should be thrown out, giving the race to the Democrat, but it would be wonderful to see my party get a seat in a state house.
Posted by: Doug on December 1, 2004 01:17 PMAs for public opinion, 70% of komo news viewers think the race should be conceded, the Seattle P-I has started agreeing, and a couple of billboards on I-5 urge concession. I can't see how Gregoire would even want the job anymore under these circumstances, but then again I'm not in denial.
Posted by: Chris on December 1, 2004 01:21 PMThink Schwarzenegger.
A caller on KVI yesterday was saying that his wife voted for Gregoire, but she was so upset by Gregoire's behavior in this recount mess that she said she felt like leading the charge to recall her if she does somehow turn this around.
Posted by: Skor Grimm on December 1, 2004 03:08 PMWhich is why there oughtn't be one.
Posted by: AC on December 1, 2004 04:42 PMI think the Republican stance is above criticism; of working towards positive proof of fraudulent voting. Rossi could not be more circumspect.
I think the Republican stance is above criticism; of working towards positive proof of fraudulent voting. Rossi could not be more circumspect.
I think the Republican stance is above criticism; of working towards positive proof of fraudulent voting. Rossi could not be more circumspect.