I'm back home from Wenatchee.
The highlights of the trial: both Harry Korrell and Jenny Durkan in their closing arguments gave Judge Bridges some very good reasons to nullify the election. I believe the Judge would rule for the Petitioners even without all the own-goals that the Democrat Intervenors keep scoring, but every point helps. I'll post more from the closing arguments in later posts.
The other big news from the trial was the closing argument from Tom Ahearne, representing the Secretary of State. Behind the attention-grabbing smear of the Republicans (see Postman @5:36pm), he also appears to have handed the R's a big favor. More in a later post.
But first, some namedropping. I got to meet several of your favorite media and political celebrities, including all the public faces of the Rossi legal team -- Dale Foreman, Harry Korrell, Rob Maguire, Marc Braden and spokeswoman Mary Lane; State Democratic Party Chairman Paul Berendt; Retired Deputy Elections Director John Pearson, who inadvertently blocked my exit from the stall in the mensroom; TNT reporter Ken Vogel, who interviewed me for a story, as did The Olympian's Brad Shannon; KING-5's Robert Mak, who, by the way, went to the same high school that I did and worked with my sister on yearbook; Our good friend Mike Siegel of KTTH; Danny Westneat, who is still convinced that King County's fundamental disregard for statutory canvassing procedures can be excused as 'mistakes'; David Postman, who really does blog live from the courtroom using a cell phone modem. He told me he checks Sound Politics while he's there. I also finally got to meet the AP's Rebecca Cook. Cook helped launch this blog to stardom when she reported on November 15 my (contrarian) prediction that Rossi would win the election. I was right then (he won twice). Similarly, my contrarian prediction that Bridges will nullify the election will be proven true on Monday at 9am. I'll be back in Wenatchee to see history being made.
Liberal MSM Conspiracy Exposed
On my way out of town I stopped at Starbucks to get a coffee for the drive home. Who do I find there but Ken Vogel of the TNT and Gregory Roberts of the P-I. They were sitting at different tables facing each other and working on their respective stories. They were helping each other try to nail down an exact quote from the Judge's congratulatory parting remarks to the attorneys [go here and fast-forward to 7:06:20]. They were stuck on a couple of words that were garbled on their own recordings. So what do they do? They call Postman.
The MSM really is a conspiracy.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 03, 2005 11:59 PM | Email ThisI will be glued to the TV Monday at 9:00.
Have a great weekend.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 4, 2005 12:26 AMI hope some day I get to meet you in person. You are one of the most interesting, refreshing people I've seen in quite some time.
I wish I could share your optimism, because as you know, this trial converted me from a contibuting Democrat to firmly independent. Unfortunately, I think democracy in Washington lost.
Regardless of the outcome, I wish you all the best and a hearty THANK YOU!!!!!!!!
Posted by: who'dathunk? on June 4, 2005 12:29 AMLike I said before Rossi is in Judge Bridges hands, and I hope Judge Bridges is in God’s hands. If he is I know he appreciates the helping hands you have provided to this case and its storied events.
Actually, THEY got to meet YOU :-)
Posted by: Michele on June 4, 2005 02:07 AMAnd apparently the minnow was too busy smoozing to notice the GOP getting stomped like a hippy chick at an NRA meeting all day on Friday. Perhaps you should have recorded the hearing like the reporters? Oh yeah, facts don't matter here.
Posted by: JDB on June 4, 2005 05:08 AMIt's probably a good thing Kerry lost, or we would have had mass suicides among the MoveOn crowd.
Which would too have ben a bad thing. I mean, in principle.
Posted by: ScottM on June 4, 2005 07:19 AMSometimes, it's just too funny, though. Yes, they were "verifying their accuracy". Yeah, that's the ticket. Where did the next two accuracy-verifying calls, go I wonder? Maybe Dan Rather, followed by Newsweek?
Oh, too much. Thanks for the laugh....
Posted by: Ken on June 4, 2005 08:36 AMAs to the trolls and other who defend the "model" election: The reason they are mad is that this time around they GOT CAUGHT! Even if it was all the little dems "doing their part" it still got found out thanks in no small part to Stefan and his team.
Posted by: Victor on June 4, 2005 08:46 AMI have also noticed how angry the trolls are. I have often wondered how they sustain their high level of anger for such a long period of time.
That can not be normal. Now there is an oxymoron: normal troll.
Indeed. And God forbid a RNC CG/Reed/KC (etc.) hate slogan would ever filter down to an independent media mouthpiece like SP.
Just more proof of election fraud, right?
Posted by: JDM on June 4, 2005 08:57 AMCan someone please explain the logic that makes it ok to think this is anything more than hypocracy?
Posted by: RToes on June 4, 2005 09:19 AMNo you nit, just more indications of the heavy denial that a systemic problem exists here in Western Washington (Seattle).
I love the Internet! Once upon a time you droolers would huff & puff and pontificate, and the rubes in the backwater would buy it hook, line, & sinker.
Now all I need to do is pull up a page and let them see for themselves the lunacy that is the far left.
Thanks algore!
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 4, 2005 09:40 AM- Harris' felon list (included +- 12k legal voters: methodology was illegal
- To this day, mandatory machine recount.
- 2k+ late military(overseas) ballots counted: R's argue for their inclusion in Bush counties (won) and against their inclusion in Gore counties (won that too).
It's a long, long list.
And BTW, contrary to RW wurlitzer the media consortium concluded Gore won in all* situations where all ballots were included.
* All means conservative/liberal interpretation of ballots. F:ex, ballots where Gore was chose by both
a) check mark on Gore Box
b) hand written: GORE
were excluded, as they were considered overvotes.
Bill H
Posted by: Bill H on June 4, 2005 09:46 AMOf course, Chris Vance wasn't calling it fraud at that point (when Dino won on 2 machine counts)..all the info on the trashy KC hadn't come in as yet. What NitWits!!
Posted by: Susu on June 4, 2005 09:50 AMNo you nit, just more indications of the heavy denial that a systemic problem exists here in Western Washington (Seattle).
huh? 2 reporters in Starbucks doing fact checking is indication of "systemic problem"?
Interesting. You're a real sleuth alphy. :(
- JDMoron
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 4, 2005 09:53 AMYes, my little wooden head....
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 4, 2005 09:57 AMBecause of your efforts, we have gone from elections officials telling us that this was a model election with a fantastic accuracy rate, to officials admitting to errors and incompetence.
Until they admitted to the problems there was no hope of solving them. It is only because of the trial and your website that we even have a chance of restoring trust to our elections system. It is good for every citizen to be able to rely on election results and count on them to be accurate.
There's got to be some kind of a medal for this. Three cheers for the Shark! Three cheers for your family! Three cheers for Sound Politics!
Posted by: California Dreamer on June 4, 2005 09:59 AMStephan had nothing to do with doing something honorable. All he did was tilt at windmills. and accuse people of Fraud that was never proven. 99% accuracy rate? They've always admited that there are errors in every election in every county. All Stephan proved is that BIAW has a lot of money that they are willing to spend to buy an election. The only Medal he will deserve is the Goebbels propagandist of the year award.
Posted by: danw on June 4, 2005 10:18 AMThere is a Draft Shark for SOS movement afoot.
Posted by: Dogbert on June 4, 2005 10:24 AM* All means where we reinvent reality wholesale and pay homage to the Grand Sinkmeister klintoon's "it depends on what the definition of "is" is".
(original AP headline on consortium findings, printed front page on all members (AP/SPT/NYT/WP/WSJ etc...)
AP Statement on Consortium conclusions
Some unofficial ballot inspections paid for by consortiums of news agencies showed Bush winning by varying margins.
AP & entire consortium mistated their findings. Word at the time was W'& co. leaned heavily on MSM to print headlines we saw, claiming printing the truth would undermine a "war time president's" authority.
1 year later, AP printed their correction (on page 18): (my bold hi-lites)
The story should also have noted that some scenarios showed Gore coming out ahead. For example, a vote-by-vote review of untallied ballots by The Associated Press and seven other news organizations found Bush would have narrowly prevailed in the partial recounts sought by Gore, but that Gore would have finished ahead by the barest of margins had he pursued and gained a complete statewide recount.
Right, so Bush wins all scenarios... except when they count all the ballots!!! Now some "meaning of the word is" for 'ya.
And this ignores felon purge, +- 10k lost "butterfly" ballots, & R's absentee shenanigans.
You want to act like an moron, knock yourself out.
Posted by: JDM on June 4, 2005 10:32 AMA Republican would have to be a damn fool ever to say flat out that Democrats didn't commit fraud.
Posted by: ScottM on June 4, 2005 10:36 AMThank you, but you are performing that task for the rest of us nicely ;'}
Please do rant on, it makes you appear so intelligent!
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 4, 2005 10:44 AMNormally I would not call an opponent dense but rather try to see his point of view. In this case, I have to call a spade a spade.
danw, only the most partisan and intolernat person could possibly believe that Stefan did nothing but tilt at windmills.
1. Without SP, we probably would haver had an admission by the KCE, that large numbers of provisionals were placed directly into the accuvote system. Remember, they originally hid this fact form the public.
2. Without SP,, we probably would not have known that there were 800 more absentee ballots counted then there were voters listed as having cast absentee votes. Remember, KCE filed a false reconciliation report saying that they had a PERFECT accounting of voters to ballots.
3. Without SP, we probably would never have discovered 96 uncounted ballots well AFTER all the counts, recounts and additional searches for "every vote". If KCE had actually reconciled their ballots, they would have known that some were missing.
There are others. It was a model election according to the powers that be, but after testamony we discover that KCE was so far from "model" as to be criminally negligent by the falsifying of reports and their failure to follow KNOWN procedures and election laws.
Yes, mistakes happen, and everyone is understanding of that. Mistakes happened in other counties, but most of them found their errors and either corrected them or owned up to them. KCE trumpeded "model election."
KCE was a mess in 2004, and though they had made mistakes in the past, they had never had such blatant "errors" as they had last year.
It is fair to disagree on the remedy for such errors, and fair to debate whether voter fruad actually happened, but it is foolish, bordering on insanity to think the KCE was nothing but normal in its handling of last year's election. You deny the obvious and hold a position that even MSM partisans no longer are willing to assert.
Posted by: Eyago on June 4, 2005 10:45 AMAs for the 2000 election... get over it, and thank God Algore did not win. If we (GOP) lose this election contest, I'll get over it, but will you if you lose? Doubtful. Very doubtful.
Posted by: Tucker on June 4, 2005 10:51 AMStefan, You should know that passing off subtle humor in this venue is risky behavior. You should have bracketed your comment with *humor* */humor*. :) I certainly didn't "get" it and was tempted to drop you a line explaining the difference between fact checking and spin doctoring. I'm glad I refrained.
Posted by: Eyago on June 4, 2005 10:56 AM2 reporters in Starbucks doing collusive fact checking is indication of "systemic problem"?
right... double checking a quote sounds pretty sinister to me. Please enlighten me... what was the intent of this evil conspiracy? And what evidence is there this was carried to fruition?
hmmm... maybe there isn't any, do you think? Or maybe Stefan just wants to stir things up?
Yes, my little wooden head....
little wooden what... ///???
You are more charitable in your appraisal of their supposed objectivity than I will ever be. Investigative journalism has to be more about insatiable curiosity than an axe to grind. When one relies more on the latter than the former, it shows.
Conservatives are beyond outrage with the LSM in Pugetropolis, and the circulation numbers prove that out. Instead we are determined to discover the truth for ourselves. Citizens, hungry for news, are finding alternative sources as necessary. Blind, unthinking acceptance of LSM output is becoming extinct (except for liberal loonies of course).
As always Stefan, thanks for your contribution to the debate!
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 4, 2005 11:10 AMyou're reading far too much into the "LIBERAL MSM CONSPIRACY EXPOSED" -- It was a joke.
t'heeheehee.
Any admission of errors was an attempt to get people to ignore problems, rather than to be honest with the public.
Equating a very small rate of errors (investigated and nearly always corrected) in some counties with the much larger error rate (sometimes ordered to not be investigated, and seldom corrected) in King county is the real propaganda, danw. Nice try though.
Good joke Stefan- some of us did want to take the opportunity to thank you, however.
That is precisely why I read this blog religiously. This blog was responsible for Whitman County residents discovering the "783 mishandled ballots" here. I read about it here, took it to the editor of the local paper and a reporter investigated. We WERE totally in the dark over here regarding statewide issues. We WERE at the mercy of the MSM/LSM. No longer, thanks to all you fine people. This is first-rate information we are receiving here folks.
Posted by: cc on June 4, 2005 11:49 AMAccording to CNN
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html
Bush would have won in all counts.
Bush original count= won by 537
Bush with full recount= won by 1020
Bush with Gore's 4 county count=won by 225
Any allegations to the possibility of Gore winning (by less than a Gregoires win)were offset by 2200 votes from very heavily Bush precincts which remained to be counted. NORC and CNN's assessment was that BUsh would win in all counts once those votes were taken into play.
Wow, guess you really told us. ALL THOSE LOONIES THAT THINK GORE WON IN 2000, GET OVER IT!
Posted by: Mark Beyer on June 4, 2005 11:50 AMThe point is that most of your conservative readers didn't see it for a joke. The MSM would actually strive for accuracy seemed a conspiracy to them.
Mr. Beyer:
Having beens shown to be wrong in parroting the right on Florida 2000, are you ready to say you are sorry?
Posted by: JDB on June 4, 2005 11:51 AMJDMoron giggles like a schoolgirl because he is dim enough to think that Stefan's post serves as some sort of refutation of the bias of the LSM....
uhhh, no. JDM "giggles" seeing what happens when one's flock is a bunch of pigeons: a "joke" is mis-interpreted for a call to jihad!!! Still, Kudos to shepherd Stefan for whip-cracking the brood back from mouth frothing frenzy: thanks Stef!!!
From the cackle over this "crime", one may have gathered that military ballots were deliberately witheld or something. (was that a joke too?)
Speaking of "LSM bias" (cough...), I see Pentagon has really exposed the evil of NewsWeek's Koran >> toilet perversion mis-reporting:
No no no, we didn't flush it... we merely urinated on it through ceiling vents!!!
This blog and how objective research was performed and reported should be a required course for every journalism major. SP my hat is off to you!
PS - May I suggest that you call your book All The Gov's Henchmen (disgraced w/ a pictuire of Sims, Logan, and Hennekens on the cover!)
not initially, or from NORC. NORC's mission statement explicitly excluded such. The headlines were as I said, and publishe by the consortium members, not NORC.
Oddly, NORC originally had announced their intention to publish results on 9/11. After TT attack, the consortium (not NORC) decided to put publish date on "Indefinite Hold" (their words). Google is full of comments by various media on reasons for this, and they say just what I stated: pressure from whitehouse that findings would undermine the president.
The findings were released to the consortium. Of those, different members of the consortium wrote that Gore may have won under some circumstances but others wrote Bush would have won in all certifiable circumstances.
More or less, true. But the headlines were as I stated: I've got 'em all bookmarked. Even your "LWM" NYT/WP said "Bush wins" (in so many words).
According to CNN
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.htmlBush
would have won in all counts.
no, it does not say that.
Bush original count= won by 537
yes.
Bush with full recount= won by 1020
nope... doesn't say that either. That's a lie.
Bush with Gore's 4 county count=won by 225
yep, you got 1 out of 3. Congrats.
Any allegations to the possibility of Gore winning (by less than a Gregoires win)were offset by 2200 votes from very heavily Bush precincts which remained to be counted.
nope... doesn't say that. I guess maybe that's your interpretation of this:
NORC reported serious problems with record keeping at many local election offices. NORC relied on these offices to produce the rejected ballots, but county officials were unable to deliver as many as 2,200 problem ballots to NORC investigators
I guess you just made that up.
NORC and CNN's assessment was that BUsh would win in all counts once those votes were taken into play.
Nope, doesn't say that either. And, it's not true. I guess you made that up as well. Just... Peachy.
FYI, that CNN link was written just subsequent to original AP release, which I linked to earlier. The "corrected" AP statement came nearly 1 year later, presumably after threat of "undermining the president's credibility" had diminished. Only 2 of the consortium members ever printed the "correction".
AP statement was clear as day: under all circumstances which all the ballots were counted, GORE won... despite some 20k ballots and/or voters in heavily dem precincts that were excluded.
Virtually everything you said was false, not cited in your reference, and not available from NORC's data. This is generally my experience w/hard line rw mouthpieces on this subject. To this day, WSJ oped frequently says the same, and it's a lie.
Posted by: JDM on June 4, 2005 12:42 PMSo Gore woulda shoulda won in Florida if all legal and illegal votes were counted?
yes.
Nice try. The inability of Dems to distinguish between legal and illegal votes mirrors their inability to distinguish between citizens and non-citizens, legal and illegal immigrants, dissent and treason.
Right.
And you don't seem to distingish independent (NORC) Florida 2k review, agreed to by all consortium members (conservative and liberal) from "dems".
Taken from context, your interpretation of "distinguish" looks like melding fictitious scenarios to construct a desired outcome. It may play well to the choir here, but it's still false.
Posted by: jdm on June 4, 2005 12:54 PMMark
Posted by: Mark D on June 4, 2005 12:54 PMJDB
Sorry you can't accept the facts. I post mine with links, you should try it some time.
jdm
I am using the consortium members articles and the NORC website content to give you the facts, now, with the truth, which of us is right?
That's gotta hurt there JDMoron...you worked so hard to display your smoking gun. Only, just like everything else about you, it's just shooting blanks ;'}
Now, why don't you entertain us all with your grand conspiracies about urinegate?!!
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 4, 2005 01:23 PMBoy, you are squeeling like a stuck pig. JDM gave you plenty of links and pointed out your straight out lies here, and I've given you links in other threads, but how 'bout another:
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2058603
Perhaps you shouldn't hang around this board so much. A few months ago I thought you were halfway reasonable for a wingnut, but now all you do is lie and make personal attacks without any basis. Wallowing in all the mistatements on this board must be driving your paranoia up.
Posted by: jdb on June 4, 2005 02:41 PMHaving read your link to CNN in favor of your contention that under all vote counts Bush won, I hate to point this out, but from the same article:
"Use of Palm Beach County standard
"Out of Palm Beach County emerged one of the least restrictive standards for determining a valid punch-card ballot. The county elections board determined that a chad hanging by up to two corners was valid and that a dimple or a chad detached in only one corner could also count if there were similar marks in other races on the same ballot. If that standard had been adopted statewide, the study shows a slim, 42-vote margin for Gore.
"Inclusion of overvotes
"In addition to undervotes, thousands of ballots in the Florida presidential election were invalidated because they had too many marks. This happened, for example, when a voter correctly marked a candidate and also wrote in that candidate's name. The consortium looked at what might have happened if a statewide recount had included these overvotes as well and found that Gore would have had a margin of fewer than 200 votes. "
I continue to await your apology and admission that you lied.
Posted by: jdb on June 4, 2005 02:53 PMAnd we thought you, as a second hand condom, were generally full of it....
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 4, 2005 02:57 PMThis is before the antics of shaking out loose chads were taken into account. Looks like the first count was the most accurate, another NORC admission.
This posting has gotten way off topic, I'm having alot of fun with this but this is my last post on this subject. You can keeping posting while I laugh.
Posted by: Mark Beyer on June 4, 2005 03:02 PMSecond, for Democrats who are still stuck in Florida 2000, let me recommend this simple Q&A that I finished in January 2001. There are a couple of mistakes in it, given its date, but I think it will help clear up many issues -- at least for those with open minds. Here's the bottom line:
"It is not going too far to say that Bush won in spite of fraud, not by the Gore campaign, but by Democratic activists. Bush is like a basketball player, who, in his drive to the winning basket, is hacked over and over without a call from the referee. Winning may make up for that, but it doesn't make the bruises go away."
There are a number of reasons I say that but here are two of the easiest to understand: First, if Al Gore had won any of the recounts, his margin would have come from the illegal votes of car thieves, drug dealers, muggers, rapists, and even muderers, some of them deliberately left on the rolls by Democratic election boards.
Second, for Gore to get as close as he did, several Democratic election boards had to count votes that had never been counted before in Florida or almost anywhere else. Those boards were in counties with recent histories of significant election fraud.
There was a legitimate way for Gore to contest the election, by asking for a recount of the entire state. He chose deliberately not to do that because he and his team thought they would lose if they did. Given the large number of illegal votes found by two newspapers that endorsed him, the Miami Herald and the Palm Beach Post, it is impossible to conclude that Gore had a majority of the legitimate votes.
And it shows something about the "mainstream" media that they ignored so much evidence of fraud -- by Democrats. The recounts that they spent so much money on were silly, given that we know that at least 6,000 felons voted in the election. In Florida, I would expect felons to vote 3-1 democratic.
Who won Florida in 2000 is no mystery -- at least to anyone willing to look at all the evidence. But why Stephan didn't get apple pie in Wenatchee is a mystery. (Maybe I should add that most of the apple growers in the Wenatchee valley vote Republican, just as a hint.)
Posted by: Jim Miller on June 4, 2005 04:34 PMfalse. There were some cries of what you speak that came from these guys, but is was contrived: they were all illegaly paid on taxpayers dime. They broke laws, and should have been in prison.
As an annecdote, John Bolton was among the coordinators of that group. Imagine that...///???
I always thought the media consortium’s count was an exercise in futility and would not prove anything.
And you based this on what objective information, if I may ask? Since '88, there have been at least 32 such recounts in Texas and Florida: not a single one was problematic.
No matter whom they concluded would have received the most votes. It was another case where the first count was probably the most accurate.
Same question: what is your evidence? I say there is none, and I researched that thing exhaustively.
After that there was too much opportunity for a few dishonest poll workers to manipulate ballots.
Uhhh, no. Every single handling of ballots was done in presence of full quadry of observers from all interested parties. The repubs in above link/picture actually broke one of their arms. Beyond that, the difference which the consortium determined put Gore over the top were rejected ballots (machines thought they were overvotes) with (as I said) Gore's selection made by both a check and his name written by voter. The Consortium also broke down the totals by interpretation of ballots(chads): clear (punched), hanging|1 corner, hanging| more than 1 corner.
This all ignores the absentee ballots that were counted, but which were postmarked too late according to Florida law.
And as mentioned, at least 13 counties (all w/repub administrators) never conducted mandatory machine recount. Harris (Florida SOS) decided to certify anyway. Imagine that...
I would point out that that the same Bush lawyers arguing this "lack of standard" as reason to not recount argued in New Mexico ""of course, no other way to determine the accuracy of this apparent discrepancy, or machine malfunction, other than the board reviewing the votes by hand."
Bush signed into Texas lawthe exact same standards for punch card ballot recounts, which had been employed a number of times in republican districts with *0* controversy.
So respectfully, I reject your assertions: they are demonstrably false as is contention W' won according to Consortium conclusions.
There are many, many other outrages. Among my favorites (and which should resonate here, as this was same issue in reverse which got SP crowd excited at beginning of current Wa. state episode) was Katherine Harris' surprise move to certify original count 3 days after initial totals calculated, which was contrary to Florida law (eg. mandatory recount on narrow margin). She did this on narrow grounds of "exercising her authority" as secretary of state.
Gore's people sought immediate legal recourse. Bush's people then made an agreement: we need to certify a result, but we will handle the recount in the "contest period". Gore agreed. Bush's people broke their word, and thwarted the entire process. A number of them have since admitted, both in interviews and books, that this was their battle plan from the beginning: get a certification, and kill a recount.
@Mark Beyer:
ou have to add what he gained to what he had already (537+493=1020).
uhhh, no. The consortium totals were clear. I can give you oodles of links on the methodology, breakdowns by county, and breakdowns by ballot interpretation. All ballots were considered.
as with previous poster, you are making stuff up.
Also, you have to add in the over 2200 votes NORC could not count as they had not been delivered. Those votes came from west central Florida, a heavily conservative area.
With all due respect, Mark D. cited this before from the CNN reference, and it's false: there is no basis for interpretation of those ballots... none. Florida SOS said they were *unreadable*. Consortium's Gore totals did not include any estimate on butterfly ballots: there were 12k+ thrown out, and as I said, that was 82% + Gore territory.
If you have a citation to back up this claim, please post it... I'd like to see it.
Sounds to me like a liberally biased AP reporter spun a story, especially when other members of the media consortium supported what CNN said.
The correction was written by AP's public editor. It is not in dispute by other members, rather only ignored by RWM out of convenience: any of them that say W' won no matter what are lieing... it's false.
jdm: I am using the consortium members articles and the NORC website content to give you the facts
uhhh, no. None of your claims are on NORC's site. I'd like to see what "corsortium members" articles you are referring to. If it's CNN (which Mark B. misquoted), that is dated +- 9 months prior to AP. There was considerable outrage when consortium members wrote their initial headlines, as NORC's data was publicly available and well disseminated. Eg., it was known that these headlines were false. The "LSM" NYT had same article title as WSJ OpEd that day.
with the truth, which of us is right?
I am. 100%.
@JDB:
"In addition to undervotes, thousands of ballots in the Florida presidential election were invalidated because they had too many marks. This happened, for example, when a voter correctly marked a candidate and also wrote in that candidate's name. The consortium looked at what might have happened if a statewide recount had included these overvotes as well and found that Gore would have had a margin of fewer than 200 votes. "
Yes.
@Breyer:
Slate is an opinion piece, irrelevant.
It's not slate: same thing is on several consortium sites still. SPT, f:example:
More than 2,100 Florida voters who wanted Al Gore to become president tried to make doubly sure of their choice. So did more than 1,300 voters who backed George W. Bush.
They marked a ballot for their candidate and then wrote in his name for president, too. Or they circled the name, or tried to scratch out a mistake, or otherwise made a second mark to emphasize their choice.
you are proving unreliable, as you've mistated a number of documented facts.
And the rest of the article? The valid votes they did not count were how many?
valid?... none.
You claimed previously this info you cite was on NORC's site: I don't see it. Can you point it out to me, or perhaps you made it up.///???
From personal knowledge I know where they came from which was significantly and heavily republican, from the article I can also tell you the number, 2200.
you gott'a be kidding... Get real.
Posted by: jdm on June 4, 2005 04:57 PM
I got a cup of coffee for the drive home so I wouldn't fall asleep at the wheel. I didn't get a piece of apple pie because I'm trying to lose some weight!
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on June 4, 2005 04:59 PMThere are a number of reasons I say that but here are two of the easiest to understand: First, if Al Gore had won any of the recounts, his margin would have come from the illegal votes of car thieves, drug dealers, muggers, rapists, and even muderers, some of them deliberately left on the rolls by Democratic election boards.
right, sure...
Second, for Gore to get as close as he did, several Democratic election boards had to count votes that had never been counted before in Florida or almost anywhere else.
that's false.
Those boards were in counties with recent histories of significant election fraud.
That's false too. In fact, most recent histories of election fraud were by republicans playing games with absentee ballots. Several of these folks were running republican counties in 2k.
Really man... "Q & A". More like B & S. Just another RWL. Peace and Freedom, blah blah blah.
I suppose you think Al Quada had associations w/SH as well?
Posted by: jdm on June 4, 2005 05:07 PMIt's been five years since your guy lost, and then lost, and then lost, and you're still peeing yourself over it. It's like a chancre eating you from the inside out.
No wonder you're such a barking moonbat!
You really should get some ice for that ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 4, 2005 05:39 PMThat's well and fine. But this stuff matters. The rest of the world collectively laughs everytime W' utters freedom/democracy and "open and transparent elections" in the same breath. Nobody believes him.
Both the Marks in this thread literally made stuff up about 2k episode. Very similar to rw wirlitzer last couple years on Iraq (Al Quada = Sadam). I guess maybe "whining" about this little war bores you as well? Boredom has it's own consequences. Good luck with that, Vic.
I'll posit an expected scenario based on observations through Bush's 1st term : Cox's appointment as SEC chairman will result in grounding for legal default of massive underfunded US pensions. In fact, it was Cox's legislation which contributed mightily to current state of pension underfinding. Be that as it may, maybe this is a good thing in winger land?
But hey, having to put up with "whining" about Enron's ripoffs, from which this template was drawn, probably just bores you as well.
Ok... go back to sleep now. Maybe it'll all go away when you awake.
Posted by: jdm on June 4, 2005 09:34 PM
Another day of hope & promise. Another day of opportunity.
Another day of horsesh!t from JDMoron......
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 5, 2005 11:22 AM