Skip to main content

View Diary: RECOUNT OHIO:Cobb & Badnarik Fundraising Drive (338 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Since I can't start my own diary (my first post) (4.00)
    I will post this here.  This is NEW evidence of massive fraud in North Carolina.  It is on the DU homepage, and is linked:

    http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=45 003

    This evidence has impressed me, a staunch critic of the "fraud" allegations.  But I am pretty sure something is amiss here.  Take a look:

    ****************
    Sorry for the numbers. This is a long and comprehensive report, so please stay with me -- it offers what I believe to be a strong case that election tampering took place, and I want to carefully establish the facts. I think it may be the first deep examination inside the numbers of a given state -- not just speculation -- but real data collection and questionable results put to the test.

    BeFree asked me a few days ago to look over the North Carolina election returns. Things looked funny. They were way out of sync with the exit polls and no one could believe that Erskine Bowles had lost in the Senate race. The deeper I looked at the figures, the more things began to look disturbing. I downloaded the precinct data and began to pour through it for clues. Then I saw that the absentee vote (which apparently also includes the early voting data) was huge, comprising more than *a million votes and nearly a full third of the total vote (30%). It offered the chance to compare an unadulterated voting pattern against the strange results of election day. I reasoned with an early vote that large, it is no longer a sample but a benchmark. The nearer one approaches 100%, the more accurate the picture of the whole. At one third, any inconsistencies should even out -- even if more white suburban Republicans voted by absentee (as has been charged in the past with smaller samples) or if the Democratic GOTV pushed our early numbers (as has been assumed for this election). In that respect, I was lucky to have looked at North Carolina -- it's not as crazed as the battleground states and the electorate is nicely split between parties. Any inconsistencies of one side dominating the early vote would have showed up in the data -- they didn't.

    With that in mind, I began an informal review of the NC absentee vote. What I found was stunning, and I believe it should have national implications. I have little doubt that we will find the same thing elsewhere by using benchmark absentee data against election day returns. It not only reflects the pattern of exit poll discrepancy we saw throughout the country, but it also makes a compelling case for purposeful tampering with the electronic data. I also think it reveals the three objectives of the Bush re-election campaign: 1) re-election 2) mandate 3) strong Senate majority.

    All of the absentee information was buried in the precinct data, hundreds of thousands of lines worth, and had to be pulled out before a comparison could be made. Before we look inside the numbers, note that of the 102 North Carolina counties, 2 have not yet posted absentee data, Catawba and Lee. It may well be in the precinct data but mislabeled or combined in some way. The NC Board of Elections said that both counties have reported, but weren't sure where it was recorded -- I'm awaiting a call back with the information. My estimate based on Catawba's demographic similarity to Davidson would shift the absentee percentages by 0.6% in the Republican's favor, so bear in mind that I've not incorporated it into the data and the consistency is going to be even better than represented. Catawba has a strong Republican base (47,923 to 33,024 registered Republicans to Democrats) and is heavily White (91,141 white to 7619 black registrants). As it is now, the absentee/early vote is almost precisely balanced statistically with the final results. Lee county is much smaller and has 16,391 Democrats to 9149 Republicans (again mostly white) -- it likely would have little impact on the percentages.

    Now, here is the absentee data for all the statewide offices, followed by the overall vote, and then the poll-only results (obtained by subtracting the absentee data from the overall figures). The poll-only data is important as it gives us an isolated snapshot of the results that were returned on election day.

    GOVERNOR (Absentee)
    Mike Easley (DEM): 573,120 (55.6%)
    Patrick J. Ballantine (REP): 445,505 (43.2%) -12.4
    Other: 12,490 (1.2%)

    GOVERNOR (Overall)
    Mike Easley (DEM): 1,939,137 (55.6%)
    Patrick J. Ballantine (REP): 1,495,032 (42.9%) -12.7
    Other: 52,512 (1.5%)

    GOVERNOR (Poll only)
    Mike Easley (DEM): 1,366,017 (55.6%)
    Patrick J. Ballantine (REP): 1,049,527 (42.7%) -12.9
    Other: 40,022 (1.6%)

    Already we notice that the Democrat, Easley, ran consistently at 55.6% at the polls, in the absentee, and in the poll-only vote. The Republican, Ballantine, actually did very slightly better in the absentee. But this is the overall pattern of consistency in all the statewide races (except for Senate and President which I'll hold till last). There is one other important hidden benchmark we can measure here, percentage of turnout. Perhaps the Democrats had more early/absentee voters and the Republicans had a bigger election day turnout? Well, we can figure that by dividing Easley's absentees by his overall votes (573,120 divided by 1,939,137) to find a ratio of 30% for the Democrat. And then do the same for the Republican Ballantine to also get a ratio of 30%. Both Democrats and Republicans turned out in equal numbers in early voting and at the polls. Thank you, North Carolina.

    To establish the point of consistency, here are the comparisons of all the other statewide races. It's a lot of numbers, most all of them in the same percentile range, but it was important to establish that there was a clear, obvious, and unaccounted diversion from the norm in both the Senate and Presidential races, so I spent a couple of twelve hour days and went through all the statewide numbers including the amendment votes.

    MAJOR RACES

    ******
    LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR (Absentee)
    Beverly Eaves Perdue (DEM): 561,584 (55.7%)
    Jim Snyder (REP): 433,112 (43.0%)
    Other: 13,217 (1.3%)

    LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR (Overall)
    Beverly Eaves Perdue (DEM): 1,888,382 (55.6%)
    Jim Snyder (REP): 1,453,711 (42.8%)
    Other: 56,367 (1.6%)

    LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR (Poll Only)
    Beverly Eaves Perdue (DEM): 1,326,798 (55.5%)
    Jim Snyder (REP): 1,020,599 (42.7%)
    Other: 43,150 (1.8%)

    *******
    SECRETARY OF STATE (Absentee)
    Elaine F. Marshall (DEM): 575,045 (58.0%)
    Jay Rao (REP): 416,145 (42.0%)

    SECRETARY OF STATE (Overall)
    Elaine F. Marshall (DEM): 1,911,570 (57.3%)
    Jay Rao (REP) 1,423,115 (42.7%)

    SECRETARY OF STATE (Poll Only)
    Elaine F. Marshall (DEM): 1,336,525 (57.0%)
    Jay Rao (REP): 1,006,970 (43.0%)

    ******
    ATTORNEY GENERAL (absentee)
    Roy Cooper (DEM): 546,477 (56.7%)
    Joe Knott (REP): 417,824 (43.3%)

    ATTORNEY GENERAL (overall)
    Roy Cooper (DEM): 1,869,699 (55.6%)
    Joe Knott (REP): 1,493,061 (44.4%)

    ATTORNEY GENERAL (poll-only)
    Roy Cooper (DEM): 1,323,222 (55.2%)
    Joe Knott (REP): 1,075,237 (44.8%)

    ******

    OTHER STATEWIDE RACES:

    ******
    AUDITOR (absentee)
    Leslie Merritt (REP): 476,257 (48.6%)
    Ralph Campbell (DEM): 503,250 (51.4%)

    AUDITOR (overall)
    Leslie Merritt (REP): 1,662,361 (50.4%)
    Ralph Campbell (DEM): 1,633,622 (49.6%)

    AUDITOR (poll-only)
    Leslie Merritt (REP): 1,186,104 (51.2%)
    Ralph Campbell (DEM): 1,130,372 (48.8%)

    *******
    COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE (absentee)
    Steve Troxler (REP): 478,794 (48.6%)
    Britt Cobb (DEM): 506,613 (51.4%)

    COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE (overall)
    Steve Troxler (REP): 1,665,678 (50.04%)
    Britt Cobb (DEM): 1,663,022 (49.96%)

    COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE (poll-only)
    Steve Troxler (REP): 1,186,884 (50.7%)
    Britt Cobb (DEM): 1,156,409 (49.3%)

    ********
    COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE (absentee)
    Jim Long (DEM): 582,238 (58.4%)
    C. Robert Brawley (REP): 414,204 (41.6%)

    COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE (overall)
    Jim Long (DEM): 1,934,061 (57.6%)
    C. Robert Brawley (REP): 1,421,404 (42.4%)

    COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE (poll only)
    Jim Long (DEM): 1,351,823 (57.3%)
    C. Robert Brawley (REP): 1,007,200 (42.7%)

    *********
    COMMISSIONER OF LABOR (absentee)
    Cherie Berry (REP): 475,570 (50.2%)
    Wayne Goodwin (DEM): 472,632 (49.8%)

    COMMISSIONER OF LABOR (overall)
    Cherie Berry (REP): 1,721,841 (52.1%)
    Wayne Goodwin (DEM): 1,582,253 (47.9%)

    COMMISSIONER OF LABOR (poll only)
    Cherie Berry (REP): 1,246,271 (52.9%)
    Wayne Goodwin (DEM): 1,109,621 (47.1%)

    ********
    SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION (absentee)
    June S. Atkinson (DEM): 507,523 (51.7%)
    Bill Fletcher (REP): 473,991 (48.3%)

    SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION (overall)
    June S. Atkinson (DEM): 1,656,092 (50.1%)
    Bill Fletcher (REP): 1,646,838 (49.9%)

    SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION (poll only)
    June S. Atkinson (DEM): 1,148,569 (49.5%)
    Bill Fletcher (REP): 1,172,847 (50.5%)

    *********
    TREASURER (absentee)
    Richard H. Moore (DEM): 546,160 (55.3%)
    Edward A. Meyer (REP): 440,871 (44.7%)

    TREASURER (overall)
    Richard H. Moore (DEM): 1,812,182 (54.5%)
    Edward A. Meyer (REP): 1,512,628 (45.5%)

    TREASURER (poll only)
    Richard H. Moore (DEM): 1,266,022 (54.2%)
    Edward A. Meyer (REP): 1,071,757 (45.8%)

    **********
    NC Constitutional Amendment 1 (absentee)
    FOR: 432,697 (51.7%)
    AGAINST: 403,475 (48.3%)

    NC Constitutional Amendment 1 (overall)
    FOR: 1,494,789 (51.2%)
    AGAINST: 1,423,195 (48.8%)

    NC Constitutional Amendment 1 (poll only)
    FOR: 1,062,092 (51.0%)
    AGAINST: 1,019,720 (49.0%)

    **********
    NC Constitutional Amendment 2 (absentee)
    FOR: 679,434 (78.6%)
    AGAINST: 185,101 (21.4%)

    NC Constitutional Amendment 2 (overall)
    FOR: 2,334,683 (78.0%)
    AGAINST: 659,532 (22.0%)

    NC Constitutional Amendment 2 (poll only)
    FOR: 1,655,249 (77.7%)
    AGAINST: 474,431 (22.3%)

    **********
    NC Constitutional Amendment 3 (absentee)
    FOR: 591,122 (68.7%)
    AGAINST: 269,641 (31.3%)

    NC Constitutional Amendment 3 (overall)
    FOR: 1,984,151 (68.0%)
    AGAINST: 933,021 (32.0%)

    NC Constitutional Amendment 3 (poll only)
    FOR: 1,393,029 (67.7%)
    AGAINST: 663,380 (32.3%)

    **********

    Of all the statewide races, the only other votes that may raise red flags are the Labor and Agriculture Commissioners, though likely the Catawba data will pull them into line. But none of the races showed anywhere near the unexplained swing of the Senate race.

    *********
    SENATOR (absentee)
    Richard Burr (REP): 492,166 49.48%
    Erskine Bowles (DEM): 492,536 49.52% .04
    Other: 9,917 1%

    SENATOR (overall)
    Richard Burr (REP): 1,791,460 51.6%
    Erskine Bowles (DEM): 1,632,509 47.0% -4.6
    Other: 48,103 1.4%

    SENATOR (poll only)
    Richard Burr (REP): 1,299,294 52.4%
    Erskine Bowles (DEM): 1,139,973 46.0% -6.4
    Others: 38,186 1.5%

    *********

    WOW. With essentially the same vote demographics in the absentee and the poll, there was a sudden shift of 6.4% of the vote toward the Republican. That's more than a little alarming and is in itself enough to call into question the legitimacy of the election day vote. North Carolinians in this forum can speak to this, but Bowles is generally well liked. There is absolutely nothing to account for the bizarre drop of support in the electorate by 6.4% between the early voting (mostly the week prior) and election day. But when we compare it to the Presidential race, it is dwarfed by absurdity.

    *********
    PRESIDENT (absentee)
    George W. Bush: 529,755 52.9%
    John F. Kerry: 469,522 46.9% -6.0
    Others: 2749 0.2%

    PRESIDENT (overall)
    George W. Bush: 1,961,188 56.0%
    John F. Kerry: 1,525,821 43.6% -12.4
    Others: 13,989 0.4%

    PRESIDENT (poll only)
    George W. Bush: 1,431,433 57.3%
    John F. Kerry: 1,056,299 42.3% -15.0
    Others: 11,240 0.4%

    *********

    So what the heck is going on here??? Kerry was behind by 6 points in the absentee/early voting. The result is consistent with the pre-election polls and most importantly with the exit polls of November 2nd. THE EXIT POLLS TELL US THAT PEOPLE VOTED IDENTICALLY TO THE OTHER THIRD OF THE ELECTORATE. By all standards of reason, the other two-thirds of the vote should be very close to the same result. But look at what happens -- a sudden and unexplained plummet in the very same electorate of NINE POINTS at the election day polls, more than doubling Kerry's overall margin of defeat. A 15 point edge for Bush in North Carolina on election day??? Come on -- I'm not that gullible. I honestly don't know how to account for that outside of computer programming -- and if it's there, there's a damn good case with the nationwide inconsistencies between exit polls and results on election day to say that it follows everywhere electronic tabulation goes. My gut tells me that this is why there is a reluctance in Florida and Ohio to push the absentee counting and that the ballots and counts had best be watched very damn closely. They present a paper trail challenge that if understood will provide a key benchmark for election day fraud. I also want to point out that the differential was not there prior to election day -- meaning there either had to be a date specific alteration in the software, a hack, or a specific activation just prior to the election. And lastly, it is not only the Presidential election day vote that is spurious -- the close Senate races also bear close scrutiny.

    •  There were 48,000 extra votes for president only (2.66)
      that would account for a 1.7% change ONLY if they all the president only votes went for bush.  It does seem somewhat suspicious.  I think someone with a better understanding of the stats should review it.

      When your opponent is drowning, throw the son of a bitch an anvil. - James Carville

      by sgilman on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 03:50:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Huh? (none)
        The point is, the poster proves absnetee vote count is an extremely good predictor of the voting machine vote count.  North Carolina is heavy with E-voting and op-scan machines.

        What he is saying is that only in the presidential and Senate races, the voting machines vote margins differ vastly from the absentee totals.

        In all other races and ammendments, absentees match the machine count.

        Something is drastically wrong here.  No one can think of a reason for the Senate and Presidential race being off by so much, when all other Dem/Rep races are dead on.

        I'd say there has to be tampering here.  That or a major computer glitch.

        •  But, the computer glitch... (none)
          ...would have to be specific to the two most important races in the state, while not affecting the rest of the items voted on. That'd certainly be an odd and suspicious glitch.
          •  Yes. I believe Olbermann has been contacted (4.00)
            and hopefully the GAO.

            This is extremely suspicious.  In fact, I think this is the best case for fraud we have right now.

            It is actually sending chills down my spine!

            •  I wasn't saying its not odd (3.20)
              I was just looking to see if the votes only for president would make any difference.  That is also why I said that someone else should with experience should look at the numbers.

              When your opponent is drowning, throw the son of a bitch an anvil. - James Carville

              by sgilman on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 04:21:53 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I see. (none)
                I'm pretty sure the OP contacted the proper authorities.

                This would also make a great story for Olbermann.  I don't have cable where I am, but I hope he got this information in time for tonight's show.

              •  Ray in TX - why did you super troll rate me? (4.00)
                I was just pointing out that the votes that were only for president (votes cast for the presdential race only) DIDN'T explain the variance.   I may not have stated it very well but I'm not a troll and this is the first time I've ever been accused of being one - Just look at my posts.

                When your opponent is drowning, throw the son of a bitch an anvil. - James Carville

                by sgilman on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 09:01:25 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Perhaps I should refrase my post (none)
                  I didn't imply that that was what the original poster was saying, I was just making sure that it wasn't a reason for the discrepency.

                  When your opponent is drowning, throw the son of a bitch an anvil. - James Carville

                  by sgilman on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 09:12:40 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Ray in TX (4.00)
                  seems to be in a lousy mood tonight. He pulled the same act with me.

                  His abuse of "power," such as it is, reminds me of someone else we all know -- and voted against -- who claims to be from Texas.

                  Chill out, Ray. Grab yourself a cold can of Lone Star and, I dunno, curse Vinny Testaverde for throwing another interception or something.

                  Spare the poor people of Crawford, Texas. Send Bush a one-way ticket to the moon instead.

                  by JacksonBlogs on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 10:58:34 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I just looked at my past posts (4.00)
                    and he went on a rampage.  He troll rated a bunch of my posts for no reason.  I'm not sure why he did this but I guess I must have said something that pissed him off.  

                    Thanks for the counter troll rating.  I have done the same for you.

                    When your opponent is drowning, throw the son of a bitch an anvil. - James Carville

                    by sgilman on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 11:27:45 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  He's A Belligerent Creep (none)
                      Who is one of the worst ratings abusers on this blog.  He has at various times declared war on the entire ratings system and indiscriminately handed out poor ratings to people in the hopes of making the system unworkable.  Needless to say, he's the first one to scream "censorship!" when he sees ratings that he considers too low on comments he agrees with.  He's also a truculent sort who loves to instigate fights.  My guess is he's tired of being driven out of Texas bars by macho Urban Cowboy types, and he compensates for his sense of shame by acting like them in cyberspace.

                      In a democracy, the people generally get the government they deserve - tant pis.

                      by JJB on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 11:48:32 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

        •  Means Nothing (1.00)
          It means absolutely nothing.  You are all assuming people vote on party lines, they don't always.

          In Massachusetts people will go to the polls to elect a republican governor while we vote back in every democrat at the state house.  

          The fact that so many of these conspiracy theories are being based on exit polls is astounding.  They are no more scientific than a poll on a website.  On the website you have no idea if someone is actually a voter, at an exit poll likewise you have no idea if someone is actually a voter.

          •  So they vote party line on absentee ballots (none)
            and in early voting, but they don't vote party line on election day?

            Why is the governor's race exactly the same?  In fact, why are all other state-wide races the same?

            You are aware of all the stories about voting machines crashing, and giving Bush 20,000 extra votes here and there?  Is it possible that these aren't isolated incidences?

          •  It's called an exit poll b/c (none)
            It's called an "exit poll" b/c the voter is being polled as he/she leaves the polling station.  

            That is quite different than a web or telephone survey in which you have to determine how likely it is that the person will vote.

          •  Say What?! (none)
            On the website you have no idea if someone is actually a voter, at an exit poll likewise you have no idea if someone is actually a voter.

            Uh, yeah, you do! Exit polls are conducted at polling places as people leave. I've been exit polled myself and I wouldn't have been if I had just walked in off the streets. The exit pollers ask people as they are leaving the polling place. Exit polls have some problems, but to say they are no more scientific than a website survey betrays huge ignorance!

          •  you don't know what you're talking about (none)
            NOTHING here is about exit polls.

            in NC this year they had early voting,
            or "no excuses" absentee voting,
            as well as traditional absentee voting.

            I was canvassing in two counties,
            and we had great success getting
            people interested in voting early
            at the county Board of Elections office.

            this year all the early voting was huge,
            almost one third of the votes in NC.
            in almost all races the percentages were
            comparable between the early votes
            and the Election Day votes -- except
            for two races, President and Senator.

            and, the NC ballot allowed for a
            "straight party" vote -- except for
            President. we instructed our voters
            that they must vote for John Kerry and
            John Edwards separately, and then
            vote straight Democratic Party to vote
            for Erskine Bowles for Senator, Easely
            for Governor, etc.

            you would expect some ticket splitting --
            but for Senator the results seem way
            out of whack with ALL other races
            where you could vote a straight ticket.
            the percentage of split ticket voting
            here is what, 3, 5, 10 times the other
            downticket races? Incredible.

            and the discussion of NC returns has
            NOTHING to do with exit polls, as you
            would see if you had the courtesy to
            read the post before bloviating

          •  Party ID nails vote to a .90 correlation (none)
            Only party ID plus chrch going or not beats Party ID alone as a predictor of someone vote.
          •  Not True - Exit Polls not like Online Polls (none)
            I just don't believe that at exit polls "you don't know if someone is a voter"  OK, maybe someone walking out of a polling place and when asked says 'yes, I just voted' is not telling the truth - but come on!   And to say that online polls are as accurate as exit polls . . . explain yourself! I say no way that would be true.
      •  Here's a 4 to counter the troll rating (none)
        that you didn't deserve. I just hate that about this site. If you don't agree, say so! Troll rating like this is uncalled for, IMHO.
    •  Er, 102 Counties? (none)
      North Carolina has an even hundred counties.

      The revolution starts now--in your own back yard, in your own home town

      by TarheelDem on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 04:27:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Further analysis (none)
      I would be interested to see if there is a systematic pattern by geography.  Are certain counties more off the mark than others?  Are certain precincts more off the mark than others?  Are they more likely to have e-voting, punch card, opti-scan, or paper ballots?  What does the variance among counties and precincts tell you about the possibility that it is technology-related?

      Is there any pattern of association with the proportions of voters who are registered Republican or Democrat.  Do more lopsidedly Democrat or Republican counties have this effect more than more competitive counties?

      You might also check for ticket-splitting which has been a North Carolina tradition since Eisenhower ran in 1952.  Are ticket splitters more likely to show up on election day or are they more likely to voter early/absentee?

      The revolution starts now--in your own back yard, in your own home town

      by TarheelDem on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 04:48:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Informational Note On Ticket Splitting (none)
        Here in NC a straight-ticket vote DOES NOT apply to the Presidential race - it must be voted separately Not sure how that would factor into this, but just thought I'd mention it.
         
        •  Does it work the same way on the absentee ballots? (none)
          Because the only difference here is the difference b/t absentees and the voting machines.

          If there is no difference b/t absentees and the machine ballots as far as voting straight ticket, than this probably wouldn't make any difference.

          Also of note, the absnetee ballot tally in 2000 was  less that 2 points off the final totals

          Gore
          41.7% Abs/43% final tally

          Bush
          57.7% Abs/56% final tally

          I find it unbelievable that there is a 9 point difference for president this year.  If there was fraud here, it could have flipped that Senate race, and padded Bush's claims for his "Mandate".

          •  Well..... (none)
            I've never seen an absentee ballot so I can't
            answer definitively. But I'd be be pretty surprised
            if if it treated straight party voting and the Pres race differently.

            Oh, and the vast majority of what is listed as "absentee" in the analysis is actually "early votes"
            rather than absentee ballots.  I voted early and I can state that we got the same ballots - where Pres (as well as the amendments listed in his data, which you'll notice match up well with election day) is a separate section from the stuff covered by straight party.

    •  Someone should help you post this as... (none)
      ....a Diary -- preferably one of the several, appropriately skeptical and longer-standing members of the dKos community.

      This should not be burried here, but be on the recommended list for full-force dialogue and analysis.

      Thank you.

      •  Can you do it? (none)
        I am pretty green here, as I am normally on DU.  I have yet to learn the ropes.

        Otherwise, who do I contact?

        By all means, any observers of this information are welcome to start their own diary!

        •  I could, but, why don't you first try... (none)
          ....posting a comment on the 'open thread' and title it:

          "Markos, Hunter, Kid Oakland would you please post this information as a Diary"

          I'll be checking through the evening and if it has not become a Diary, I'll certainly do it for you.

          Outstanding analytic work! And, I've forwaded it to folk at other sites and involved in various campaigns who will likely be very grateful for what you have done.

          Thank you.

          "It's about our Democracy" [the one on life support and in need of immediate, heroic treatment]

        •  Here is what I would post for you... (none)
          Title: Greed Kills: The 2004 NC Story

          Reference your DU URL:

          Two sentence summary.

          Pointer to the dKos Diary in which you posted your comment and others responded [to make sure all those good comments are readily available to whomever reads the Diary].

          I will indicate that they should address all comments to you, either at dKos or at DU.

          Let me know if you want anything modified; added and if you want me to post it. I should be able to do it by 8pm PST.

          Peace.

    •  response from an NC activist (2.50)
      I analyzed after the early voting deadline but before the election the counts for Wake, Durham, Orange, Buncombe, Guilford, and Mecklenburg. In each county the % of Democrats casting early votes exceeded the percentage they make up of the total electorate, in other words Democrats were more likely to cast an early vote than Republicans.  So it is not surprising at all that Kerry did much better among early voters than he did non election day, because Dems had tapped out the most driven part of their electorate. Durham and Orange were the highest % for Kerry overall, 68% and 67% respectively.  In Orange and Durham counties, I believe half the total turnout was early voters. This helped skew the early voting turnout MUCH more Democratic than on election day.

      So I think it not unexpected at all that there would be a wide divergence between how Kerry did among early voters and how he did on election day. In fact, it was to be expected

      In my humble opinion that comment that:

       "A 15 point edge for
      Bush in North Carolina on election day??? Come on -- I'm not that gullible. I honestly don't know how to account for that outside of computer programming -- and if it's there, there's a damn good case with the nationwide inconsistencies between exit polls and results on election day to say that it follows everywhere electronic tabulation goes."

      is not really supportable.

      •  Than why no discrepancy for govornor? (none)
        or any of the other Dem/Rep races?  The govornor's exactly the same.  Wouldn't Ballatine have a boost in election day totals then?

        How about all the other elections?

      •  With *Lots* Of Respect, Gerry.... (4.00)
        I'm not sure I buy this. Because..

          a) there were 14 statewide races and in 12 of them
        (including three non-partisan amendments) this
        analysis shows the absentee/early vs. election day
        breakdown being essentially the same.  It's only the two national races (the two Rove would care about!) that give the bigger Repub numbers on election day.  If the party breakdown of early voters
        were the key factor wouldn't it be logical that it
        would go the other way....ie, that the downticket
        races - where the voter is less likely to know the
        candidates and more likely to vote based on party - would be the ones showing the strongest Dem advantage in early voting?

          b) May not be a factor but these numbers are
        statewide while your earlier early voting analysis
        was centered on the counties with the state's
        biggest cities (Wake/Durham/Orange/Guilford/
        Mecklenberg/Buncombe/etc).  Do we know that the
        Dem early voting turnout was actually higher statewide?

        •  Repubs (none)
          but The Repubs have CONSISTENTLY done better on election day for President and Senate in NC than for any or all of the other statewide races. Remember Jesse Helms? Remember Nixon, Reagan, Bush 41/43, they always outpolled the Repub candidates for Governor, Sec of State, etc. We elected a Dem governor by a big margin this year and picked up 5 house and 2 senate seats this year, because NC voters still vote Dem in state elections. Since 1968, they have mostly voted repub for senate/prez.  I really do not think the fact that Bush/Burr outpaced the other offices means fraud. It's just the continuation of a longstanding trend.

          And most of the miscounting in NC that was corrected initally benefitted DEMOCRATS, the 4500 missing votes in Carteret County are mostly Repub, in Mecklenburg, 7 tabulators from an early vote site in the black community were counted twice while seven tabulators from a suburban site were omitted, in Gaston County they initially forgot to count a tabulator with 12,000 votes and that is a Repub county. And in NC we count provisionals even if you showed up in the wron precinct. Wake County had 13.500 provisionals of which 10,900 were counted and Kerry got 61% of them.

          •  I dunno...2000 Absentee stats: (none)
            Gore
            41.7% Abs/43% final tally

            Bush
            57.7% Abs/56% final tally

            In 2000, it looks like Gore outperformed Bush on election day compared to absentee totals.  I don't think those DUI charges hat THAT much of an effect.

            We're not talking about ticket splitting here, we're talking about absentee vs. vapor ballots.  Vapor ballots seem to be giving Bush a gigantic edge.  And Burr to a lesser extent.

      •  EXACTLY (2.00)
        A lone voice of reason....thank you for presenting an alternative thought process.
    •  UPDATE!! (none)
      <reccomendation whoring>
      A new diary has been started about this!  To consolidate discussion on this topic, go here:

      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/12/233831/06

      </reccomendation whoring>

    •  Greed Kills: A NC Case Study (none)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site