RECOUNT OHIO:Cobb & Badnarik Fundraising Drive

THIS DIARY HAS BEEN REPOSTED FOR FRESHNESS, PLEASE GO TO THE NEW DIARY AND RECOMMEND
Special thanks to those who started this thread, such as SensibleShoes. I am merely continuing the work they began.
As of this posting Cobb & Badnarik have raised $48,635 & rising, with the goal of $150,000 by Monday. We can make this goal a reality.
Kossacks have been an invaluable asset to this drive and I thank each and every one of you for pitching in

I am reposting this thread, as the one that was up yesterday is no longer in the Recommended list. Please Recommend this diary to keep the drive alive.

http://www.votecobb.org/

Click Here To Donate

11/11 - David Cobb and Michael Badnarik, the 2004 presidential candidates for the Green and Libertarian parties, today announced their intentions to file a formal demand for a recount of the presidential ballots cast in Ohio.
"Due to widespread reports of irregularities in the Ohio voting process, we are compelled to demand a recount of the Ohio presidential vote. Voting is the heart of the democratic process in which we as a nation put our faith. When people stand in line for hours to exercise their right to vote, they need to know that all votes will be counted fairly and accurately. We must protect the rights of the people of Ohio, as well as all Americans, and stand up for the right to vote and the right for people's votes to be counted. The integrity of the democratic process is at stake," the two candidates said in a joint statement.

http://www.votecobb.org/

Click Here To Donate

•  Has anyone asked KE04 for a donation from..

  ..the GELAC funds?

  What about the DNC?

  p.s. I've certainly made my donation.

  Thanks.

  by understandinglife on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 11:26:00 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for posting this

    my husband and I gave them every dime we could scrape together. I keep checking back, hoping for an update on the fundraising.

    by julie37 on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 11:28:50 AM PDT

  •  these are separate groups

    i am not certain they can release the funds to outside organizatiosn even if they wanted to

    by bruh1 on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 11:48:36 AM PDT

  •  Honestly

    I'd like to keep Kerry out of this for as long as possible.  If it turns out that the numbers are actually close it is going to get ugly very quickly and it would be better if he wasn't affiliated with this effort.  

    Look how Gore was beaten down by the media for a month.  If the recount procedes now Kerry can say- "I conceded, I don't have anything to do with this."

    But send money or Kerry will have to show his cards earlier...

    by Preston on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 01:25:34 PM PDT

  •  The DNC was asked but declined

    They are supportive of others going forward with the recount (in Ohio, anyway), but are very concerned about not appearing to be involved in demanding a recount themselves.  

    Incredible as it seems, apparently the top priority for DNC insiders is to avoid being labeled as "Sore Loserman".

    Maybe if we started a campaign to call the Bush-Cheney campaign "The Bush-Cheated" campaign, Bush and Cheney will be so embarrassed, cowed and intimidated that they won't oppose the Ohio Recount effort?

    Personally, I wanted Dean but I ended up liking Kerry after all.  Now I'm wondering what's going on?  Can it be that Kerry values his own political career prospects more than this golden opportunity to protect our right to vote?

    There have been dozens of U.S. presidents, but only a handful have had an opportunity to lead the nation out of crisis.  Kerry had a chance to do something far grander than becoming President. Kerry could have assured his place in history by standing up tall and sincerely defending our right to vote.  Instead, but he turned his back on us to avoid damaging his resume.

    I'm voting third party from now on every chance I get.  Enough of this bullshit.

    by Sycamore on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 01:35:37 PM PDT

    •  Bush Cheated 2004

      That's very good.  I like that.

      I'll distribute a "4" in lieu of pay.

      by quaderni on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 01:46:26 PM PDT

      •  I'm giving you a 4....

        for what I believe is a Blazing Saddles reference.  Even if it isn't it put a smile on my face.

        by jimmyjames on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 02:29:56 PM PDT

        •  Blazing Saddles, it was

          
          And why yes, thank you, in turn!  Can me and the 'boys' get my ball and paddle now?

          by quaderni on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 02:45:27 PM PDT

    •  Yeah! They stole my vote- I won't ever vote again!

      by Preston on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 01:48:26 PM PDT

    •  Brilliant

      That was so good, had to make it. Sycamore gets credit for the concept.
      

      by Brian Nowhere on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 02:04:37 PM PDT

      •  Business opportunity here

        Somebody should make these buttons and use them to raise money for the recount.  I would like to order a bumper sticker, screen saver, about 20 buttons, etc.
        

        by Sycamore on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 02:56:36 PM PDT

        •  do it at cafepress.com

          One off bumperstickers, t-shirts, etc. http://www.cafepress.com/. Quality is pretty good and the pricing is good enough.

          by weirdscenes on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 07:33:29 PM PDT

      •  I want some!

        by Percheronwoman on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 08:22:38 PM PDT

        •  I love your signature line!

          by GinnyfromWI on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 10:32:21 PM PDT

    •  wait

      you don't really know the DNC wasn't planning on calling for a recount.  I think they were just waiting till the provisional ballots were counted.

      by johnalrd on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 02:53:40 PM PDT

      •  Shake off all the fears ...

        under which weak minds are servilely crouched.

        Well, in 2000 I politely waited for the DNC to count all the votes.  But alas, they waffled and cherry-picked and wanted to recount only where they thought they had the best chance of picking up votes. So they lost the moral high ground and the recount became a spectacle of partisan mud-wrestling and chewing on each other's ears.

        They should have demanded that ALL the votes be counted.  But they put their short-term political gain ahead of protecting our basic right to vote. Shouldn't that tell us something? Do they really dare to do that a second time?

        I waited quietly and politely last time.  I'm not going to be herded into a pen again. As this story inexorably unfolds, those leaders who failed to support the recount are likely to be judged and found lacking.

        Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear. -- Thomas Jefferson

        by Sycamore on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 03:33:57 PM PDT

        •  What Are You Suggesting?

          I'm not exactly sure what you want the DNC or John Kerry to do.  Do you think Kerry should unconcede, or do you think Kerry and the DNC should come out publicly and demand a recount?

          We lose all credibility if Kerry or the DNC make any sudden public announcement.  The repubs can't make charges of being a sore loser if Kerry is on the sidelines.  

          Once this story gets bigger, public support for a recount will grow, and we will have the public on our side.  People will see the possibility of Ohio voter fraud, and see that the charges are not even coming from the Kerry campaign or the DNC and the demand for a recount will rise.

          You need to think with your brain, and not with your heart right now.  What good will come out with Kerry and the DNC publicly demanding a recount.  Nothing.  I mean, all the ballots still havn't been counted yet.  We still don't have conclusive evidence of voter fraud.  We need to smart about this, not reckless.

          by sportsman885 on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 07:05:06 PM PDT

          •  It's not enough to be smart

            When we are afraid to simply request an open accounting of our votes, and find excuses for not demanding this basic right, we delude ourselves. We are fools to imagine that things will sort themselves out even if our votes are not counted, and that we must wait patiently and not protest even as we see our civils rights eroded, one by one. History tells us otherwise.

            We lost the 2000 election because we were too clever, too immersed in short-term strategies, to simply stand up for what we knew was right. We were timid, looking for the path of least resistance. We ended up losing our bearings and much else besides.  Never again.

            To answer your reasonable questions:

            John Kerry should have kept his promise to "make every vote count."  It's as simple as that.  I believed that promise and I voted for him. I'm disappointed. He could have waited a few days.  What was the urgent matter that took priority over assuring the integrity of the vote?

            Frankly, John Kerry is the one who needed to be told, "We need to be smart about this, not reckless."

            And what now, that he's made a bad decision and backed himself into a corner? Well, why not simply show some integrity and backbone?  Above all, he ought to show us that he cares more about defending our basic right to vote than he cares about his own political career.

            How he chooses to demonstrate that is up to him.  If he is indeed a leader who deserves our respect, he'll find a way.

            by Sycamore on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 09:44:12 PM PDT

            •  Look, I see where you are coming from, but...

              everything we are fighting for would be ruined if Kerry and the DNC become publicly involved.  Credibility is lost, public support erodes, and republican attacks begin.

              The fact that people not associated with the Kerry campaign or the DNC are conducting this process gives us credibility and support from the public.  If people like Cobb, Badnarik, etc. are calling for a recount, how are they going to be accused of being sore losers?

              And what makes you think Kerry didn't keep his promise?  Do you think Kerry isn't keeping tabs on what is going on in Ohio?  You think his lawyers are doing nothing?  They will do whatever it takes to get every vote counted appropriately.  And they are smart enough to know that the less Kerry and the DNC get involved, the better chance a fair election is conducted.

              Have faith in the man.  He has spent his whole adult life trying to become president and he aint going to let some asshole steal it from him.  Though his heart says to attack the election process, his brain knows the best chance to succeed is to remain silent until there is conclusive evidence of fraud, all the ballots are counted, or outsiders have forced a recount.  Talking about this publicly hurts the party's credibility, and the chances of us breaking this election scandal open.

              by sportsman885 on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 01:17:44 AM PDT

              •  Credibility is lost by not defending our rights

                Have we all succumbed to the Orwellian logic of the Bush-Cheney administration?

                If Kerry defends our right to vote, he will gain credibility, not lose it. Martin Luther King, when reviled and attacked by cowards, only gained greater credibility and support among decent men and women.  When he stood up and demanded justice, his public support did not erode.  Quite the contrary.

                Of course Bush and his supporters will attack Kerry if he shows guts and integrity.  But surely Kerry is not afraid of their name-calling?

                If Thurgood Marshall found the courage to take legal cases in places where he had to get out of town before nightfall, surely John Kerry has the courage to be smeared and criticized by scoundrels and tyrants.

                John McCain once said in South Carolina, "I'm honored by the attacks by the people who addicted our children and lied to Congress."

                Kerry should be honored to incure the ire of those who oppose free elections. If he's afraid of losing their respect, then he should join their party.

                Integrity is not a matter for strategic compromise.  If you don't agree, then vote next time for the candidate who hesitates to be publicly associated with demanding an open and fair voting system.

                I will vote for a different kind of candidate. I want someone who demonstrates integrity and leadership, and I will work to defeat any candidate who dares to trade away my right to vote as if it were a chip in his private poker game. My vote does not belong to him.  He may not trade it away to improve his chances in 2008.  It is mine, it is precious, and I will defend it.

                Because I am not in their districts, I cannot vote for Conyers, Nadler, and most of the others who demanded a GAO investigation, but I damned sure am going to send them money for their next campaigns.  As for Kerry, if he defends my vote, he can count on my vote and my continued support in the future.

                If not, then I will find candidates who are not embarrassed at the prospect of supporting my most fundamental rights.

                by Sycamore on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 11:41:24 AM PDT

          •  I think Kerry is on it!

            First, I don't think he has much to loose. If he presents it as just wanting to be diligent. When he's got all the fact he can get. He could just come out and state that there are too many incoherences in this vote. The new Mexico turnout, the Ohio 4000 votes for Bush, the extreme and systematic discrepancy with exit polls, the Florida Republicans willingness to go against the board of election's cheaper and safer recommendation, the Diebold CEO statement, the Florida technical glitches, the voter suppression, etc. This deserves looking into. He should say that if these are just isolated incidents and coincidences, he'll accept it gladly and go back home.

            But to come out like this, you need the most facts you can get. And the best thing is also to not give too much of a notice for the republicans to prepare. (Although I'm quite sure they have a defense in place. Guilty or not.)

            I have got to believe that Kerry the prosecutor is looking into this. For god's sake, he's the guy who kept looking into BCCI despite many colleagues telling him that he was going against too many powerful interests and that it was bad for his Senate career.

            Finally, one last thing. I find the Kerry team's discipline at keeping collective silence on the topic somewhat eerie. I would think that if they had really thrown the towel, there would have been more noise on this... Even at a meetup I went in Evanston, last night. One guy started mentioning the Fraud word, and the organizers smoothly changed the topic. Maybe it's just a collective desire to move forward. Or maybe it's just the troops all knowing that they should taunt the enemy just before battle...

            Finally, on a personal note. I would feel just outstanding if Kerry came out swinging.

             

            by FightOn on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 12:30:40 AM PDT

            •  It would feel outstanding, but it just isn't smart

              Kerry's silence is frustrating, but people need to realize it is the only practical way to go.  Him coming out swinging wouldn't help the solution.  While it would give us energy, it also gives ammunition to republicans and the media to unload on Kerry and the DNC.

              The facts havn't all come in yet.  All the ballots havn't been counted yet.  Be patient.  It would ruin our credibility to have Kerry come out and publicly fight this thing.

              by sportsman885 on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 01:01:33 AM PDT

    •  I Love the Slogan, but...

      I have to disagree with you about Kerry.  Tell me what happens if he publicly gets involved with this?  He gets bashed by the media, and his support erodes.  I mean, all of us will continue to do whatever we can for the man, but the average political observer will be turned off.

      The fraud claims are more credible with Kerry behind the scenes.  If Kerry and the DNC were openly pursuing this, what credibility is that?  

      Nothing is conclusive right now.  There are some interesting theories, some solid evidence, but nothing that concludes Kerry should have won Ohio.  With people like Cobb, Badnarik, etc pursuing recounts, he doesn't have to make this thing public.  It is extremely smart of him to lay low during all this.  

      I just don't understand what people want the man to do.  He bowed down gracefully.  He did what he thought was best for the country.  With Kerry and the DNC out of the picture (at least publicly), the republicans can not put that sore loser label on us.  They got nothing.  Public support rises because it appears something strange happened in Ohio, and it wasn't even the Kerry campaign or the DNC making the charges.

      So, please, do not worry about John Kerry.  He knows what he is doing.  His silence may be frustrating, but it is the smart thing to do.  

      by sportsman885 on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 05:47:57 PM PDT

    •  bush/cheated

      we should all start calling them this, i agree.
      http://www.northernsun.com/cgi-bin/ns/5553.html

      by gothmom on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 12:44:21 AM PDT

  •  Since I can't start my own diary (my first post)

    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.
    

    by JohnnyCougar on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 03:31:28 PM PDT

    •  There were 48,000 extra votes for president only

      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.

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

      •  Huh?

        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.

        by JohnnyCougar on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 03:58:46 PM PDT

        •  But, the computer glitch...

          ...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.

          by pointsoflight on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 04:05:38 PM PDT

          •  Yes. I believe Olbermann has been contacted

            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!

            by JohnnyCougar on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 04:10:19 PM PDT

            •  I wasn't saying its not odd

              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.

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

              •  I see.

                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.

                by JohnnyCougar on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 04:27:42 PM PDT

              •  Ray in TX - why did you super troll rate me?

                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.

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

                •  Perhaps I should refrase my post

                  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.

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

                •  Ray in TX

                  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.

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

                  •  I just looked at my past posts

                    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.

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

                    •  He's A Belligerent Creep

                      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.
                      

                      "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

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

        •  Means Nothing

          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.

          by scottspol on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 06:52:38 PM PDT

          •  So they vote party line on absentee ballots

            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?

            by JohnnyCougar on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 07:24:56 PM PDT

          •  It's called an exit poll b/c

            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.

            by Jon B Good on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 07:41:43 PM PDT

          •  Say What?!

            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!
            

            by Davidsfr on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 08:12:49 PM PDT

          •  you don't know what you're talking about

            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

            by Woody on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 10:45:33 PM PDT

          •  Party ID nails vote to a .90 correlation

            Only party ID plus chrch going or not beats Party ID alone as a predictor of someone vote.

            by wildhair on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 11:24:34 PM PDT

          •  Not True - Exit Polls not like Online Polls

            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.

            by AskQuestions on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 08:01:51 AM PDT

      •  Here's a 4 to counter the troll rating

        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.

        by pixella on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 07:05:30 AM PDT

    •  Er, 102 Counties?

      North Carolina has an even hundred counties.

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

    •  Further analysis

      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?

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

      •  Informational Note On Ticket Splitting

        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.
         

        by chaboard on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 05:41:39 PM PDT

        •  Does it work the same way on the absentee ballots?

          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".

          by JohnnyCougar on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 06:03:25 PM PDT

          •  Well.....

            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.

            by chaboard on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 06:24:14 PM PDT

    •  Someone should help you post this as...

      ....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.

      by understandinglife on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 05:57:04 PM PDT

      •  Can you do it?

        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!

        by JohnnyCougar on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 06:06:35 PM PDT

        •  I could, but, why don't you first try...

          ....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]

          by understandinglife on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 06:24:51 PM PDT

        •  Here is what I would post for you...

          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.

          by understandinglife on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 06:58:32 PM PDT

          •  That would be great...post it!!

            BTW, this wasn't MY original work, I just decided to spread it around. :-)

            by JohnnyCougar on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 07:26:56 PM PDT

            •  Understood. I'll get a diary up shortly....

              ....after I check to be sure no one else has posted one.

              Peace.

              by understandinglife on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 08:08:03 PM PDT

              •  I Reformatted The Results Given Above

                Into what I think is a more readable format here .

                Can someone who has a DU id post this link in the thread over there for me?

                by chaboard on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 08:40:42 PM PDT

                •  I don't but perhaps Johnny does....

                  ....and thank you. I will insert a reference to your link in the Diary I just posted on dKos.

                  Thank you.

                  by understandinglife on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 08:43:17 PM PDT

    •  response from an NC activist

      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.

      by dean4ever on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 06:17:57 PM PDT

      •  Than why no discrepancy for govornor?

        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?

        by JohnnyCougar on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 06:22:04 PM PDT

      •  With *Lots* Of Respect, Gerry....

        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?

        by chaboard on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 06:35:13 PM PDT

        •  Repubs

          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.

          by dean4ever on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 08:03:08 PM PDT

          •  I dunno...2000 Absentee stats:

            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.

            by JohnnyCougar on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 08:58:05 PM PDT

      •  EXACTLY

        A lone voice of reason....thank you for presenting an alternative thought process.

        by scottspol on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 06:54:36 PM PDT

    •  UPDATE!!

      <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>

      by JohnnyCougar on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 09:42:17 PM PDT

    •  Greed Kills: A NC Case Study

      Pertinent dKos Diary:

      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/12/233831/06#30

      Thank you.

      by understandinglife on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 09:57:25 PM PDT

•  AAR

  Is AAR flogging this?  That's what they're there for, after all.

  by scorponic on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 11:29:55 AM PDT

  •  Randi Rhodes...

    Someone send this to Randi.

    by NCYellowDog on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 11:31:58 AM PDT

•  What about moveon.org

  they were taking donations also

  by TNforkerry on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 11:31:53 AM PDT

  •  Are the donations earmarked for the Ohio Recount?

    or are they being accepted as general donations?

    I love MoveOn.org, but send us to a page on their site that says, "These funds will be used exclusively to support the recount."

    by Sycamore on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 01:49:20 PM PDT

  •  Are you sure?

    I've only seen them asking people to sign a petition... no requests for money so far...

    by gdesignr on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 06:56:19 PM PDT

    •  I also love MoveOn

      but get real!  They always ask for donations.  And no, they did not say the money would be earmarked for a recount on the email that was sent asking for people to sign the petition and provide personal experiences.

      Dear MoveOn member,

      Questions are swirling around whether the election was conducted honestly or not. We need to know -- was it or wasn't it?

      If people were wrongly prevented from voting, or if legitimate votes were mis-counted or not counted at all, we need to know so the wrongdoers can be held accountable, and so we can prevent this from happening again.

      Members of Congress are demanding an investigation to answer this question. The decision on whether or not there will be an investigation could come as soon as Monday. Join us in supporting the call for one now, at:

      http://www.moveon.org/investigatethevote/

      Then please invite your friends and colleagues to sign, as well. We need to show Congress that hundreds of thousands of Americans are serious about protecting the integrity of the vote.

      We're all hearing the stories and wondering what's true and what isn't. But at least two cases of serious problems are accepted beyond doubt:

          * In Broward County, Florida, electronic voting machines counted backwards: as more people voted, the official vote count went down. [1]

          * In one Columbus, Ohio suburb, election officials have acknowledged that electronic voting machines credited Bush with winning 4,258 votes, even though only 638 people voted there. [2]

      These are just cases where we know something went wrong. There were also lots of reports of people being denied ballots on Election Day. So far, these reports remain anecdotal, but they must be compiled and examined. And the Internet is abuzz with theories about why the official counts were so different from the exit polls.

      Do you have a story? Were you prevented from voting? Tell us, at:

      http://www.moveon.org/investigatethevote/

      Six prominent members of Congress have called for an investigation. Representatives Conyers (D-MI), Holt (D-NJ), Nadler (D-NY), Scott (D-VA), Watt (D-NC) and Wexler (D-FL), have demanded that the U.S. General Accounting Office:

            immediately undertake an investigation of the efficacy of voting machines and new technologies used in the 2004 election, how election officials responded to difficulties they encountered, and what we can do in the future to improve our election systems and administration. [3]

      We've got to support their call by asking our own Representatives and Senators to join them.

      If you have a personal story of disenfranchisement, tell us. These members of Congress have agreed to include our stories and comments in their call for an investigation. Please sign now -- we'll deliver our compiled statements to them on Friday.

      Even if you don't have a personal story, your signature on our petition will still help build support for an investigation.

      To keep our faith in democracy, we need to know the facts. Your signature, and your story if you have one, will help.

      Thank you.

      Sincerely,

      --Carrie, Joan, Lee, Marika, Noah, Peter, Rosalyn, and Wes
        The MoveOn.org Team
        November 11th, 2004

      Footnotes:

      1. Broward Machines Count Backward, Palm Beach Post, November 5, 2004
      http://www.palmbeachpost.com/politics/content/news/epaper/2004/11/05/a29a_BROWVOTE_1105.html

      2. Glitch Gave Bush Extra Votes in Ohio, AP carried on CNN, November 5, 2004
      http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/05/voting.problems.ap/

      3. Letters from members of Congress to David Walker, Comptroller General of the United States, demanding an investigation of the election: November 5th, 2004 & November 8th, 2004
      http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/gaoinvestvote2004ltr11804.pdf
      http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/gaoinvestvote2004ltr11804.pdf

      by givmeliberty on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 08:53:40 PM PDT

•  RE: AAR

  I think there is some conflict over this. Randi Rhodes, Janeane Garafalo & Sam Seader are really going after this. Al Franken isn't too thrilled. He thinks they sound like conspiracy theorists.

  by LeftisRight on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 11:32:15 AM PDT

  •  He's Right. They Do.

    But this isn't a "conspiracy" issue.  It's a "verify the results in light of questions" issue.  It's a great opportunity to check on the accuracy of the voting process and should be spun as such.  Who can oppose that exercise?

    by scorponic on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 12:03:03 PM PDT

    •  Bush-Cheney

      and anyone else who benefits from a system that re-elects incumbents over 95% of the time.

      It's no coincidence that the only candidates who are demanding a recount are third-party.

      However, Conyers, Nadler, and the others demanding a GAO investigation deserve our contributions and our respect.  Make sure they get re-elected.  They stood up for us.

      by Sycamore on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 01:53:08 PM PDT

  •  I think Randi and Janeane have gone off ...

    the deep end, too.  BUt I still want the votes counted.  They got my $50.  And now I listen to the Young Turks instead of the formerly amusing Janeane Garofolo.

    by DrFrankLives on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 12:33:25 PM PDT

    •  Yeah, I'm tired of her

      Since the election it's been: voting conspiracy, 9/11 conspiracy, and 'wah, Sam Seder doesn't like me...'.  

      I think it's time they find someone who isn't quite so intent on embarassing the left.

      (and get rid of Liz Winstead while they're at it)

      On the larger point- I agree, let's count the votes.  But let's hold off on the 'they stole the election' rhetoric until we get within spitting distance.  or maybe a little proof.

      by Preston on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 01:55:20 PM PDT

      •  Yeah

        I respect anyone who's willing to voice their opinion in a national forum, but Liz Winstead ain't helping.

        by silverbax on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 02:57:07 PM PDT

  •  Walter Mebane

    Let me preface this by saying The Al Franken Show is my favorite Air America Radio program by far. Al is sort of the opposite of a conspiracy theorist. He thinks Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. That's fine.

    Today's guests included "Professor Walter Mebane, who will put to rest the rumors that last week's election was stolen." I was interested to hear what he had to say about the exit polls or Ohio. What did he talk about? Dixiecrats. That's the second or third time that Franken has covered the FL OptiScan issue and nothing else. Is anyone on dKos still talking about that one? Hell, I debunked it for myself with about one hour of work in Excel.

    The problem here is the rhetoric that dismisses all election irregularities as conspiracy theories just because one claim turns out to be false. That's exactly what happened to Dan Rather's truthful report on Bush's National Guard service.

    By the way, $20 pledge from me.

    by stabguy on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 12:38:01 PM PDT

•  open those wallets people

  I gave 100.00

  by sirhotspur on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 11:33:16 AM PDT

•  Randi

  is off today.  I'll send it to her producer.  He can make announcements?

  The experience of waiting for a paycheck to clear so I can donate to a Libertarian/Green Party Ohio recount fund is slightly surreal.

  by queerbklynboy on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 11:35:15 AM PDT

•  Isn't this what

  thealliancefordemocracy.org is doing?
  I hope Cobb and Badnarik are pooling funds and efforts with them. I donated to alliancefordemocracy.org....

  by quigon on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 11:36:34 AM PDT

  •  WARNING! Be sure it's THEalliancefordemocracy.org

    alliancefordemocracy.org domain is taken by seeq, this adware-ing company. Don't go there!

    Go to THEalliancefordemocracy.org.

    DILUTE! DILUTE! OK!

    by Ace Pumpkin on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 12:28:49 PM PDT

    •  DILUTE!

      all is one!

      by flatulus on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 11:02:04 PM PDT

•  Something odd

  According to the Ohio Secretary of State website's unofficial count, Cobb got only 24 votes in the state of Ohio.  Even though he was a write-in candidate, that number seems really low.

  Also, with 11000 precincts in Ohio, gaining 13 votes per precinct would reverse the outcome, and that's not considering the provisional ballots.  Does anyone know when the provisional ballot results will be released? Tomorrow is day 11, I think.  And is Blackwell getting away with disqualifying the provisional ballots that didn't have birthdates?

  by NonemptySubset on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 11:48:38 AM PDT

  •  I believe he is...

    I have not heard of anybody fighting him on that.  This is the practical effect of Kerry conceding and only contesting the outcome subtly, if at all - there is nobody to highlight the sleazy tactics of Blackwell and get him to back down through public pressure.

    I've heard all the arguments against it, but at the end of the day Kerry should have contested the outcome if only to highlight all the voting irregularities and anomalies, like 7 hour lines to vote in largely minority districts.  If we can't ensure that every American who is qualified to vote can do so in a reasonable time - no more than an hour would be reasonable - then we are not a fully functioning democracy.  And if our party won't fight for open and fair elections, what the hell WILL we fight for?

    by markusd on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 11:54:50 AM PDT

    •  There are lawyers everywhere

      Kerry's lawyers are watching like a hawk as are Bush's and Kucinich's also.

      http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1110-31.htm

      That story about the disqualifications was published and forwarded I'm sure to everyone and their grandmother through this diary:

      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/11/03225/949

      so it's hard to believe that these lawyers do not know what is going on.

      If you haven't seen the sites about what is happening, start with http://www.ohiodems.org and go from there.

      Here is one analysis of what's the campaign was thinking:
      http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i21election.htm

      by Patsy Stone on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 12:15:09 PM PDT

      •  Padding Bush's Votes in OH - theory

        THEORY
        How bizarre that the last county reporting in OH would have a fake terror alert to keep out outside observers. Being last to report, Warren County officials knew how many provisional ballots there were. So on directions from ROVE they padded Bush's totals by some thousands to make it seem that Bush had an insurmountable lead. One that could'nt be made up by those provisionals, thus discouraging any doubts about the outcome of OH. Bush got around 18,000 more votes there in 2004 than he did in 2000.Some precincts in Warren County recorded voting rates at more than 80% of registered voters, a very high number.So by handing Bush those extra votes  they were clinching OH and putting him over 270 electorates - delivering him the presidency.

        Warren County Commisioner Pat South - who is she? WC officials said an FBI agent told them that Warren County ranked a "10" on a terrorism scale. However, state and federal homeland security officials said Tuesday they were unaware of any specific threat against the county. Why the fuck would Warren County rank a 10 for terrorism? What bullshit!  Pat South needs to be called on it hard!

        An update: I heard they're now claiming it was a threat of domestic terrorism . Total BS!

        by Glickman on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 02:38:45 PM PDT

        •  WC County Comm. Pat South

           Pat South (office)
           406 Justice Dr., Lebanon, OH 45036

          Telephone:
           513-695-1252

          FAX:
           513-695-2054

          E-Mail:
           [e-mail]

          Sent her an e-mail. You should too.

          To Pat South,
          I want to see the documentation you received from the FBI stating that Warren County was under a high terrorism threat on election night, justifying the banning of outside observers from watching the vote counting process.Please release this information to the public.Thank You.

          by Glickman on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 03:34:12 PM PDT

          •  455

            she's republican.  of course.

            by Cedwyn on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 04:54:47 PM PDT

        •  I have been asking this

          for days now.

          My Rovian theory involves the Laptop, the Modem, the Old Family Dining Room and the Spreadsheet.

          Where is Woodstein???

          KO asked this question the other night of Jonathan Alter. Why aren't a million reporters curious?

          by Patsy Stone on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 04:44:53 PM PDT

    •  Oh, God forbid Kerry to...

      actually do something on this! He's too busy trying to make sure he has a chance at the 2008 nomination by not looking like a conspiracy theorist.

      Well, John, it's over! You're never going to be President. So spend a little bit of your political capital, challenge the vote in Ohio and help us get to the bottom of whatever went wrong - if anything - on November 2nd!

      by Seemabes on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 12:17:31 PM PDT

      •  must..not...troll rate

        I decided that I just vehemently disagree with you, so I've kept my twitchy finger off the ratings button.

        Just because John Kerry has not told YOU that he's investigating this, does not mean he's not investigating this.  (Referring to the plural "you" that keep saying this)

        His people are said to be on it.  Could there be a reason he's not trumpeting this?  Isn't he supposed to be the intelligent candidate?  Do we want a circus or do we want results?

        Clues

        by Clues on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 12:25:33 PM PDT

        •  I suppose it is true

          faith does spring external. I hope you are right- but my gut says are you aren't : (

          by bruh1 on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 12:29:29 PM PDT

    •  Here's my take

      Kerry's folks are taking notes of every ballot that is disqualified so that they have numbers, and if they can get the vote from the ballot they can tally that as well.  They note the reasons for disqualification.  Then at the end they choose to fight based on whether there's a chance of winning the election based on the outcome of the fight.  For example if after recount Bush is up by 50,000 votes and there were only 15,000 provisionals disqualified for missing DOB it's not worth fighting in this arena.  If Bush is up by 15,000 votes and there are 50,000 provisionals disqualified for missing DOB and they were predominantly from Kerry-favoring precincts then no holds will be barred.

      That's my hope anyway.

      -Fred

      by FredFred on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 12:44:44 PM PDT

      •  According to this article about DOB....

        ....the ballots missing DOB will be counted.

        http://www.cleveland.com/newsflash/cleveland/index.ssf?/base/news-13/1100286546143660.xml&storyl ist=cleveland

        Pertinent quote:

        Meanwhile, counties that were confused about whether to validate provisional ballots that don't have voters' dates of birth on them were told Friday by the secretary of state's office in a conference call to allow those ballots.

        Cuyahoga County elections board director Michael Vu said there had been confusion over whether missing birth dates made the ballots invalid.

        "We're counting those now," he said.

        Provisionals were cast by people who say they are registered to vote but whose names did not appear on rolls on Election Day. Ohio election officials are now processing the state's 155,337 provisional ballots. If the registration information is verified, the ballots will be counted by board members by the Dec. 1 deadline.

        by understandinglife on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 01:54:29 PM PDT

        •  It's going to take until Dec 1?

          I thought they were verifing them now and would count them tomorrow, or I my be confusing provisional with absentee.

          by sgilman on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 05:26:02 PM PDT

          •  Not sure; just had this quote (n/t)

            by understandinglife on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 05:34:07 PM PDT

      •  It's about spoiled ballots

        The recount isn't about challenging which provisional ballots are disqualified, though Kerry's lawyers may be considering that too. It's about counting the 3% of ballots which are "spoiled" (ie. can't be counted by machine) and aren't counted at all the first time round.

        by cybo on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 03:00:44 PM PDT

    •  When is enough enough?

      Mark the lines were hours long in Massachusetts too, is that irregular or just a lot of people voting?

      We're guaranteed the right to vote, not the right to vote in 2 minutes or less.   People have died for all of us to have that right and you're complaining about standing in line?  Spare us, and spare the country.

      Kerry conceded because he LOST.  He knows it, his party knows it, and everyone but goofballs on the internet know it.   Everyone went postal over Florida without ever looking at the results in years passed.  

      If you are all interested in being fair and counting every vote, why not demand recounts in Milwaukee County and Phildelphia?  Without those two counties this election was a landslide.

      Someone explain to me how 75k more voters showed up on election day than the county believed were even eligible.  You want to see some fraud go to Milwaukee County where they demanded to have twice as many ballots as possible voters.  They were handing them out like napkins.   IF EVERY registered voter showed up to vote in Milwaukee and voted in the same percentages Bush wins Wisconsin.  Instead 115%+ showed up to vote...more than the US Census or Milwaukee County even thought were old enough/legal to vote.

      If you want a fair recount in all close counties I'm all for it, if you just want recounts in certain counties where you think it will benefit Kerry you're being intellectually dishonest and nothing more than crybabies.

      The reason nobody in the media is really covering it is nobody in their right mind would think this election was stolen.  THE AVERAGE OF THE POLLS SHOWED BUSH WINNING OHIO handily, which he did.

      by scottspol on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 01:58:37 PM PDT

      •  Wisconsin has same day registration

        not to let facts get in the way of your argument. Also, if you are okay with 7 hour lines - that's you- doesn't require a conspiracy or fraud to say there should be voting reform.

        by bruh1 on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 02:19:14 PM PDT

        •  I agree

          I agree that we need reform but listen to what Ginsberg and Boies are saying.  Both agreed with Brokaw in saying that neither side wants reform, they like it the way it is.  For the dems it's a rallying cry, for the repubs it's a security blanket.   Bruh1, if in 2008 we actually had a verified voting system in place we'd see massive swings in the voting patterns I guarantee it.  There are so many anomalies in the current system....

          One thing nobody here mentions, Bush picked up 5% over 2000 even in Kerry's home state of Massachusetts.  That to me makes it very clear Kerry did not have the support Gore had.   Gore won NJ by 15%, Bush cut that to 7% this year.  All of the polls showed Bush winning Ohio and that is exactly what happened.

          by scottspol on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 02:32:15 PM PDT

          •  Wow

            This qualifies as the worst argument I may have ever heard.
            if in 2008 we actually had a verified voting system in place we'd see massive swings in the voting patterns I guarantee it.

            So what?????

            Every vote should be counted ( within a very small margin ) If India can do it, and if we are telling other countries to try it, we better damn wll have it down to a science.

            by Brian Nowhere on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 02:41:54 PM PDT

          •  Ginsberg and Boies?

            Can you even have a discussion without name dropping or will that strain your brain too much?

            I don't care what the Party stiffs want, this is about fair and equal protection for every voter who stood for hours in line and refused to be bullied and intimidated. This is about confidence that the results are within an acceptable margin of error.

            Right now, we have to pick our battles, and Ohio has documented irregularities from the run up before the election, including the attempts to dump voters from the rolls wholesale, a bogus terrorist scare locking down Warren county from press scrutiny, and the Sec'y of State suddenly changing the criteria for info on the provisional votes after they'd been submitted.

            If you have actual evidence of Dick Tracy the fictional character voting (hey, labor makes some mothers whimsical) put it out there.

            Otherwise, take your trolly self back to momma's basement.

            by boadicea on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 03:13:14 PM PDT

            •  Unreal