Kerry by landslide [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

Secretariat

10-27-2004, 09:42 PM

Originally posted by linrom1
Pollsters are wrong, Kerry will win by landslide. This outcome is not even in question.

linrom1,

You are correct on one account. The pollsters were dead wrong in the 2000 election. I went back and Bush was supposed to dramtically win the popular vote according to the pollsters. In fact the sceraio most talked about was Gore winning via electoral. Turns out it went the other way around. Strangely in 2000 the Gallup poll was one of the most off. I've never put very much stock in these polls. They deal with inequal party samplings, and don't even count cell phone users today.

I don't think Kerry will win by a landslide, but I am hopeful he will win.

BetHorses!

10-27-2004, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by linrom1
Pollsters are wrong, Kerry will win by landslide. This outcome is not even in question.

Thats funny. I just gave a friend Kerry plus 2-1.

A landslide is a little ridiculous, Did you know Gore beat Bush in Hawaii last time by 12 percent and the polls indicate its a dead heat

sq764

10-27-2004, 09:54 PM

Originally posted by Secretariat
linrom1,

You are correct on one account. The pollsters were dead wrong in the 2000 election. I went back and Bush was supposed to dramtically win the popular vote according to the pollsters. In fact the sceraio most talked about was Gore winning via electoral. Turns out it went the other way around. Strangely in 2000 the Gallup poll was one of the most off. I've never put very much stock in these polls. They deal with inequal party samplings, and don't even count cell phone users today.

I don't think Kerry will win by a landslide, but I am hopeful he will win.

That's interesting Sec... On October 27th, 2000 the Gallup Poll had Bush up 48% to 43%.. The October 27th, 2004 Gallup Poll (today) has Bush up 51% to 46%.

Is 5% dramatically??

Do you just throw out #'s and hope no one cares to check them?

Do some legwork man..

GameTheory

10-27-2004, 11:02 PM

It is true that many polls are flawed and inaccurate, mainly due to the way they break up the Democrats & Republicans.

However, Zogby has been dead on the last two elections. Is it just luck? We'll see.

In 2000 Zogby had Gore 48%, Bush 46%. Right now Zogby has Bush 48%, Kerry 47%. So if it doesn't break one way or the other at the last minute, it will probably come down to the EC breakdown. If Bush wins Ohio & Florida, he'll win. He seems to have a decent lead in Ohio right now and is slightly ahead in Florida according to every poll I can find (including Zogby).

ElKabong

10-28-2004, 03:55 AM

What scares me as a W voter, is that there are a ton of newly registered voters. Those types rarely vote for the incumbent. Are they being polled at all? The newly registered?

Last summer Limbaugh made fun of some pollsters for polling "non-likely voters". He should have tapped on the brakes; This year is the exception. People I know who haven't voted in over 15 yrs have already done so (early ballot), and the newly registered I know have done the same.

All (that I know personally) have voted for W, btw.

So maybe this yr the new voters will be diff, maybe not. My guess is that Kerry will benefit from the newbies.

JustRalph

10-28-2004, 04:40 AM

Originally posted by ElKabong
What scares me as a W voter, is that there are a ton of newly registered voters. Those types rarely vote for the incumbent. Are they being polled at all? The newly registered?
These are the Viacom voters. Mtv Rock the vote types. CBS news types too........they believe everything they hear from 60 minutes. Viacom and the Hollywood Left will probably be the death knell to Bush.........You can't believe the crap the Kerry campaign is running on TV and radio here every ten minutes. And this state will probably decide it all. We actually had the lead local drive time radio guy tell his listeners to tune back to FM until the election is over........... I am sure that made his boss happy.............

GameTheory

10-28-2004, 05:03 AM

New voters probably will not decide this. They still will only make up a tiny fraction of the total (only 1% or so) and even if they break for Kerry, it is not like it is going to be 100%. 65% for Kerry would have to be considered huge, but that means only a fraction of 1% gain. Only if it comes down to 500 some votes again will it matter, which is possible I suppose.

I'm just wondering what will happen if one of those alternative scenarios occur where there is a tie, and the Speaker of the House becomes President (which could be a Democrat if they pick up seats, and a woman at that). Can you imagine if after all this mudslinging NONE of the candidates gets to win? Talk about chaos...

Equineer

10-28-2004, 05:38 AM

I am confident that new and infrequent voters will indeed decide this election. This plays right into the Kerry campaign strategy. Whether it is in a forum like this or in workplace coffee-break discussions, using all forms of interactive communication, a Kerry campaign strategy has been to lure the most "ardent" Bush supporters onto center stage and into the limelight so as to rupulse swing voters.

I invite Secretariat, LJB, and other Kerry supporters to join me in thanking Tom, JustRalph, Boxcar, SQ764, Justmissed, and Elkabong for repulsing most swing voters who have browsed here. Hail the power of repulsion! :)

ljb

10-28-2004, 08:32 AM

OK.
Tom, Boxcar, sq764, Justmissed, JustRalph, Lefty, Elkabong and PA.
Thank you for showing the browsers the "heart and soul" of the Republican party.
Greedy
Old
Poops
:D

so.cal.fan

10-28-2004, 11:12 AM

That is a pretty judgemental call, ljb.
Even for a joke.
You don't know these men personally,
From what I know, most of the men you list are NOT OLD.
And I wouldn't consider PA or Just Ralph or El Kabong (whom I know personally) greedy, I don't know the other men, but I doubt if your description is even close to being accurate.
As for swing voters.........I'm one, my husband is one and several of our friends are.........we are all Democrats, who had doubts about our candidate this year.......I don't read political news in the papers and I watch very little on TV......I read all comments on this board, because I consider handicappers to be among the smartest people around, regardless if they are Dems or Reps.
The information on this board is fair and balanced and we have decided to vote for Bush, I live in Calif. and I will vote for some Democratic candidates on my ballot.....but have to pass on Kerry, and it will be the first time in 20 years I have voted Republican.
I'm old, but not greedy and I hope I'm not a poop!;)

Secretariat

10-28-2004, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by sq764
That's interesting Sec... On October 27th, 2000 the Gallup Poll had Bush up 48% to 43%.. The October 27th, 2004 Gallup Poll (today) has Bush up 51% to 46%.

Is 5% dramatically??

Do you just throw out #'s and hope no one cares to check them?

Do some legwork man..

You're right SQ, but you forget that Gore won the popular vote according to the official count of the Federal Elections Commission by a half million votes.

So Gallup was off in 2000 by at least 5%, more likely 6%. Well beyond their margin of error. That's one reason I don't put much stock in polls.

ljb

10-28-2004, 12:22 PM

So. Cal.Fan
Hope you are not offended but, in the land of internet one has to make judgements based on what one reads. My basic opinion of those mentioned stands.
I think it is a shame that we have young men and women being killed daily in Iraq and these posters are concerned about their lousy $300 tax cut. I paid my taxes with pride last year knowing that most of it would be going to support our troops, most if not all those mentioned were exclaiming with glee about their reduced tax burden. This led me to the Greedy Old Poops name.
They can spout all they want about other issues but it all boils down to their personal desire for lower taxes.

Secretariat

10-28-2004, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by ljb
So. Cal.Fan
Hope you are not offended but, in the land of internet one has to make judgements based on what one reads. My basic opinion of those mentioned stands.
I think it is a shame that we have young men and women being killed daily in Iraq and these posters are concerned about their lousy $300 tax cut. I paid my taxes with pride last year knowing that most of it would be going to support our troops, most if not all those mentioned were exclaiming with glee about their reduced tax burden. This led me to the Greedy Old Poops name.
They can spout all they want about other issues but it all boils down to their personal desire for lower taxes.

Well said LBJ, but you missed a few points.

1. It is not a tax cut, but a tax loan from their children, or other people's children.

2. The tax relief (for this generation) has been more than eaten up by signficantly higher energy costs, interest charges on the debt, and rising health care costs.

3. The biggest winner from the tax loan has been the wealthiest people in the country who not only have very few members in the military front lines, BUT they don't even have to pay for the war. How about that? 200 billion for FREE. It's a war no one has to actually pay for. Well, sometime. We just have our children pay for it.

What a plan....

sq764

10-28-2004, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by ljb
So. Cal.Fan
Hope you are not offended but, in the land of internet one has to make judgements based on what one reads. My basic opinion of those mentioned stands.
I think it is a shame that we have young men and women being killed daily in Iraq and these posters are concerned about their lousy $300 tax cut. I paid my taxes with pride last year knowing that most of it would be going to support our troops, most if not all those mentioned were exclaiming with glee about their reduced tax burden. This led me to the Greedy Old Poops name.
They can spout all they want about other issues but it all boils down to their personal desire for lower taxes.

Oh what a hypocritical web we weave.. You are 'happy' knowing most of your taxes are going to our troops.. Yet you are rallying for a senator who consistently voted to reduce military funding and voted against advanced weaponry to help our troops in a war.

It's comical watching you make yourself look like a babbling idiot.. Are you TRYING to emulate Kerry or does it just come naturally?

so.cal.fan

10-28-2004, 12:52 PM

ljb posts:
"I think it is a shame that we have young men and women being killed daily in Iraq "

They are responding to a vicious attack on the United States.
We are in a conflict with radical Islamic terrorists. Not long after 9/11/01, ljb....President Bush told the people of the United States, we would be in a very long struggle with these terrorists.
It would carry our efforts all around the world, if necessary.
There would be times when it looked like we were doing very well, other times when it looked very bad for us, and most of the time, most would not be aware of the long term picture. He went on to explain that we would have to make serious sacrifices to
prevent further attacks on our country, and we will have to endure losses. Based on what we have seen in Spain and Russia and other areas.......President Bush was correct.
What really convinced me was when Sen. Hillary Clinton SUPPORTED the President's efforts, in spite of very strong disappoval from many of her leftist supporters.
This struck me as significant. Do you think maybe, just maybe she might have "known something"???? I sure do.
I don't support all of President Bush's domestic policies.....that is why I am voting for Democrat representives in my state.
However......ljb........like former mayor Koch......the terrorism issue out trumps them all! I will vote for the President.
I'm sure the men you mentioned as selfish old poops just laughed at your "joke".....but you should be very clear about one conservative poster on this board.....lsbets/Jeff.......a young man who is putting his life on the line for us all, ljb....so we can freely post our views on this board.
I respect your opinion ljb, for the most part....I don't think you really meant to "flame" men like lsbets.........I respect Sec. and other liberals on this board......however.....I don't agree with any of you on this issue, and I read your comments with an open mind.
I think you guys handicapped this issue WRONG.

so.cal.fan

ljb

10-28-2004, 01:07 PM

So. Cal. Fan post
They are responding to a vicious attack on the United States.
The United States was attacked by OSAMA BIN LADEN and his bunch of thugs from Saudi Arabia.

What really convinced me was when Sen. Hillary Clinton SUPPORTED the President's efforts, in spite of very strong disappoval from many of her leftist supporters.
This struck me as significant. Do you think maybe, just maybe she might have "known something"???? I sure do.
It would be Un-American to not support the President in time of imminent threats of war. I totally supported the President and his search for Osama. It was when he diverted our resources and went after Saddam that he lost my support.

I could go on, but basically this administration and their republican controlled congress have done nothing in the best interest of the United States of America. All their actions have been in their pursuit of personal wealth/power.
And that is the reason that I urge you to vote for John Kerry this year.

schweitz

10-28-2004, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by so.cal.fan

I respect your opinion ljb, for the most part....I don't think you really meant to "flame" men like lsbets.........

You give ljb too much credit.

ljb

10-28-2004, 01:57 PM

Schweitz,
First I did not include lsbets in my original note. He is a seperate case because of his position. However, I know a young enlisted man. He tells me he cannot attend any political rally in uniform. He has also been instructed not to talk to the press in uniform.
lsbets comes on here as a member of our military service and spouts his political beliefs. Is this not a violation of regulations? And the same can be said for cj. I am sorry I did not include you in my original list , if it makes you feel any better you could also be considered one of them thar!
Greedy
Old
Poops :D

ljb

10-28-2004, 02:04 PM

From So.Cal.Fan
I respect your opinion ljb, for the most part....I don't think you really meant to "flame" men like lsbets........
I did not include lsbets in my original note. He is under different circumstances and one must give consideration to this. I have disagreed with him on most if not all things but i did not intend to "flame" him. For further understanding of my view on this see my note to schweitz regarding political activity while in uniform.

lsbets

10-28-2004, 02:04 PM

ljb,

As long as I am not in uniform and do not represent myself as an official spokesan of the Army, I am free to give my opinion. Nice try.

ljb

10-28-2004, 02:08 PM

So when you post a note as coming from an active military man in Iraq you are not in uniform? You may want to check this out with your commander. Don't go as high as the President he will just pass it back down the ranks. ;)

lsbets

10-28-2004, 02:14 PM

ljb,

It may offend you to hear the truth from those of us in the field. I really don't care. The fact is you have intentionally insulted me and my soldiers time and again, and attempted to goad me with childish and immature remarks making fun of any casualties that my unit may have suffered. If you feel that me offering my opinion as a citizen is in violation of some regulation, then I suggest you report me to the Department of the Army. Once again you spout about things of which you have zero knowledge and show what a true idiot you are.

ljb

10-28-2004, 02:16 PM

lsbets,
here is one from Rudy Gulliani
The president was cautious the president was prudent the president did what a commander in chief should do. No matter how you try to blame it on the president the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there. Did they search carefully enough? Didn't they search carefully enough?
Don't know if you consider this an insult or not but it appears to be another case of passing the buck.
ps
could you refresh me where i insulted you and your troops.

10-28-2004, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by ljb
Schweitz,
First I did not include lsbets in my original note. He is a seperate case because of his position. However, I know a young enlisted man. He tells me he cannot attend any political rally in uniform. He has also been instructed not to talk to the press in uniform.
lsbets comes on here as a member of our military service and spouts his political beliefs. Is this not a violation of regulations? And the same can be said for cj. I am sorry I did not include you in my original list , if it makes you feel any better you could also be considered one of them thar!
Greedy
Old
Poops :D

You should check your facts before you make yourself look like Kerry again. Because it is known I'm a military man, and because I support Bush, does not mean I am an Air Force spokesman for Bush. I can attend any rally I want to attend, just not in uniform or in any official capacity for the Air Force.

so.cal.fan

10-28-2004, 02:53 PM

To all my fellow Democrats on this board:

On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, as the WTC was crumbling, a friend called me. She lives in my town, she is a Socialist.....voting for Ralph Nader, I believe.....anyway, she was horrified at what had just happened......and she made a comment to me:

"Well, Diane, you sure have the right people in office to take care of this one".

Did you guys not pay attention to what happened in Spain and in Russia?

These Islamic terrorists are set on destroying anything and anyone who is not a fundamentalist Muslim of their beliefs.

Again, you guys, this is a HUGE issue, that TRUMPS all your other complaints, and the fact that everyone, including Bill and Hillary Clinton (who must have had some CLUE) thought that Saddam and his evil plans were a threat to the stability of the middle east and to us.
I still believe that we have the right people in power at this time to deal with this issue. None of your arguments have convinced me otherwise.
I know you all hate President Bush.......so be it........however....if he gets relected you should take heart......if he doesn't do a good job in two years the house and senate will go back to the Democrats and chances are Hillary Clinton will be the Dem. candidate for President in '08. Chances are grand she will win, as well.
In regards to the '06 elections......if the Reps are doing a poor job at that time....I'll be right here "campaigning" for Democratic candidates with you.
In the meantime....next Tuesday, President Bush will get my vote.

chickenhead

10-28-2004, 03:22 PM

listened to one of the executive editors of the Wall St. Journal editorial page last night, his gut feeling matched my own.....he said basically, I don't know who will win, but I don't think it will be close (popular vote at least)....this is an important election, far more important to voters than in 1996 or 2000.....the candidates have clear differences....and when people get into the voting booths they will go fairly heavily one way or the other.

ljb

10-28-2004, 03:57 PM

From So.Cal.Fan.
These Islamic terrorists are set on destroying anything and anyone who is not a fundamentalist Muslim of their beliefs.

You will not get an argument from me on that statement. My only question is: Why did Bush quit the chase of the Islamic terrorists and spend our resources and manpower on his personal goal of getting Saddam?

Tom

10-28-2004, 10:49 PM

SoCalFan...

the fact that Ljb and "EQVetus" don't like me is like a seal of approval. Not being liked by the two most vile, sickening, inconsiderate dweebs on the internet is encouraging.

Fact is these two and their mentally challenged cohorts are dissing the democratice party to no end. I have always said that the dems need to clean house and take back their party. I would not hesitate to vote for a qualified dem candidate, but there has not been recently. I am leaning towards voting for Chuck Schummer - a dem- because he has done some good things in NY and I repect his work for the local Vets hospital. Bottom feeders like Kennedy, Kerry, Edwards, Gore, they are disgusting people, like "Ljb/EQVetus"

Thank goodness L will be gone in a few days, the other witch cannot understand she is not wanted here and will always keep coming back under a new name, after she totally disgraces her current moniker. Pity some people have to keep pretending to be someone else because they are such losers they cannot maintain an identify for any length of time. There must be a clinical term for this virtual-personality syndrom she displays, but I have not found it yet. I'll just stick to the tried and true "dipstick" for now.

This country needs a strong, honest, democratic party to offer alternatives to the republicans, competition. Right now, the wackos are running the party and this is bad.

Hopefully, sane dems like you will prevail in the end.
I am sure noting anyone has posted here in any thread will say anyone' svote other than a person of such little mental capacity that they wander the internet hoeplessly looking for guidence. Sound familiar? Like anyone we know?

Tom

10-28-2004, 10:53 PM

Originally posted by ljb
From So.Cal.Fan.
These Islamic terrorists are set on destroying anything and anyone who is not a fundamentalist Muslim of their beliefs.

You will not get an argument from me on that statement. My only question is: Why did Bush quit the chase of the Islamic terrorists and spend our resources and manpower on his personal goal of getting Saddam?

You have data to support this theory of yours?
Data that shows we have QUIT persuing El Qeda? I am wating to see it.
And oh, yeah, that 380 tons of explosives - which BTW accounts for about 0.2% of what we have already secured - would still be there, and so woudd SH. So for all your whinning and crying on other threads about this relatively small amount of non-WMD, YOU tell me...what is the preferred situation?

PaceAdvantage

10-29-2004, 12:56 AM

PaceAdvantage

10-29-2004, 01:02 AM

Originally posted by chickenhead
listened to one of the executive editors of the Wall St. Journal editorial page last night, his gut feeling matched my own.....he said basically, I don't know who will win, but I don't think it will be close (popular vote at least)....this is an important election, far more important to voters than in 1996 or 2000.....the candidates have clear differences....and when people get into the voting booths they will go fairly heavily one way or the other.

I've been saying this all along (perhaps not on this board, until now), so I agree with you. I don't think the election is going to be as close as people are saying.

Either the "new voters" and the "anti-Bush" factions are going to be much more powerful then we all thought, OR, much WEAKER than we all thought. Usually, these types of "organizational masses" end up a whole lot weaker than they like to project to the world.

That's my .02

Secretariat

10-29-2004, 01:09 AM

It looks like Jeb is giving GW a lead from the starting gate. Unbeleivable.

http://www.baou.com/newswire/main.php?action=recent&rid=1834

PaceAdvantage

10-29-2004, 01:19 AM

Ok, I skimmed the article, but for the life of me, couldn't find how a computer vote could be "spoiled"

How is a computer vote "spoiled?" It's either "on" or "off" in a computer. There is no spoiled "hanging chad"

or is this one of dem "fake" articles, and I'm just a sucker?

Secretariat

10-29-2004, 01:31 AM

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
Ok, I skimmed the article, but for the life of me, couldn't find how a computer vote could be "spoiled"

How is a computer vote "spoiled?" It's either "on" or "off" in a computer. There is no spoiled "hanging chad"

or is this one of dem "fake" articles, and I'm just a sucker?

“Spoiled” means cast, but not counted. The hanging chads, etc issue.

Jeb Bush’s Select Task Force on Elections recommended paper ballots with scanners over touch screen computers. The touch screen computers cost 8 times as much as the scanner solution and the scanners were only 0.1% error prone while the Touch screens were 1.0% error-prone. Bush chose the MORE expensive options, with the HIGHER error rate despite his own commission’s recommendation.

The 2001 Congressional study shows that the computers spoiled votes in minority districts at a rate three times higher than in white districts….the fifteen counties can expect to lose 29,000 votes to spoilage more with the touch screens rather than if they had used the scanners. Given the demographics of spoilage, this translates into a net lead of thousands for Bush before a single vote is cast.”

PaceAdvantage

10-29-2004, 01:38 AM

I'm not sure you answerd my question.

I know what spoil means in terms of a paper ballot. A person votes, but for whatever mechanical or technical reason, the vote doesn't count (the hole didn't punch, or the chad was hanging...whatever)

My question remains, HOW does a vote CAST on a computer become spoiled?? You touch a screen, and the vote is recorded.

How does a computer screw that up? If you touch the screen, the computer records the vote. If you don't, it doesn't.

Even if you touch the screen and nothing happens, you should be able to touch it again (sort of like a SAM machine at the track), until the computer responds with a "receipt" of your vote.

What am I not getting? Does it have something to do with the unlikely hard drive crash, or power surge that fries a computer and thus destroys all the votes?

JustRalph

10-29-2004, 01:58 AM

Sec

the fact that you buy this crap says volumes about you..........

Secretariat

10-29-2004, 02:23 AM

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
I'm not sure you answerd my question.

I know what spoil means in terms of a paper ballot. A person votes, but for whatever mechanical or technical reason, the vote doesn't count (the hole didn't punch, or the chad was hanging...whatever)

My question remains, HOW does a vote CAST on a computer become spoiled?? You touch a screen, and the vote is recorded.

How does a computer screw that up? If you touch the screen, the computer records the vote. If you don't, it doesn't.

Even if you touch the screen and nothing happens, you should be able to touch it again (sort of like a SAM machine at the track), until the computer responds with a "receipt" of your vote.

What am I not getting? Does it have something to do with the unlikely hard drive crash, or power surge that fries a computer and thus destroys all the votes?

It has primarily to do that one cannot do an accurate recount if in the event it is needed. Your situations are possible. Here are some actual situations.

I’ve listed a few links PA which talk about your question. If the Internet can be hacked why do you not think a Touch Screen cannot be as the John Hopkins research below attests. The fact that it is impossible to do a recount shows a considerable disadvantage. There IS no paper trail at all…..None. And they had initial problems in some provisional states. Now if New Mexico was won by less than 300 votes, and ALL the electoral votes go to the winner, and no recount is possible, it seems a tremendous disadvantage to either party.

A few PA….

http://www.newtoncitizen.com/citizen/archive/articleE284F627FB9C4D5AAB042F47818518FD.asp

And from the Wa. Post

Researchers at Johns Hopkins's Information Security Institute say that the system is prone to errors and tampering. Because the machines use smart-card technology, they say, someone could program a counterfeit card to cast numerous ballots at a time. In addition, they raise concerns that voting officials could, accidentally or intentionally, program machines to count ballots cast for one candidate toward another's tally -- and voters would never know. Diebold officials say the researchers were studying a year-old, superseded version of their computer code. They also say that the kind of cheating that the researchers may have managed in a laboratory environment could not take place under real-life conditions

Some parts of Maryland, such as Baltimore County, have discussed asking for an extension of the deadline to implement the system. Although some requests have already been withdrawn, the state elections office should be open to such appeals. A failure in an electronic voting system could pose a far greater threat than hanging chads.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A15485-2003Aug2&notFound=true

JustRalph

10-29-2004, 02:31 AM

Answer me this.............why is it that only the Dems are screaming about this? Because the studies you post have all been debunked. The Repubs aren't the ones running around screaming that their 10,000 lawyers are going to go after State Legislators and the voting machine makers. We believe our votes count as much as yours do. But we also can understand the facts when we read them and we don't try to use falsehoods to prop up our followers and demand an advantage..........

Secretariat

10-29-2004, 02:44 AM

JR,

No, the John Hopkins study has not been debunked, only that Diebold says they've fixed it....

There still is no paper trail. Let me ask you something. If New Mexico goes for Kerry by 20 votes, and the Touch Screens have no recount option, don't you think the GOP is going to want to recount? If you're not I bleeive you're being disingenuine.

PaceAdvantage

10-29-2004, 03:05 AM

Originally posted by Secretariat
It has primarily to do that one cannot do an accurate recount if in the event it is needed. Your situations are possible. Here are some actual situations.

Recount? It's done by COMPUTER!!! Unless there is a hard drive crash, or a data crash of somesort, then the COUNT is PERFECT by definition....a recount would be absolutely 100% redundant.

There IS NO HUMAN ERROR INVOLVED like there can be with pulling a lever and punching a hole in a piece of paper.

There is no NEED for a recount when it comes to computers. Machines are perfect (as long as they are executing code that is error free)

How do you recount something that, by definition, has been counted 100% accurately?

I won't even get into hacking and whatever far out theories are out there. Voter manipulation and vote tampering has existed since the beginning of our country. Whatever the medium it manifests itself is inconsequential.

JustRalph

10-29-2004, 03:41 AM

I read the fix that was presented by the manufacture. It was basically a software upgrade. I also heard a three hour radio show on the machines with two different company reps who addressed all the questions and took calls from the public. Every scenario they were presented with, was debunked. I understand computers..........and everything they said made perfect sense. PA's points are valid. There won't be any mistakes to have recounted. End of story. The machines do a self test also. If voter number 284 comes in and votes, it is recorded. Before voter 285 gets to vote.....the machine will self test (depending on what model) and shut down and allow no other voting until the current tally is counted and re-certification of the machine is done. That means the machine will be done for that current day (election) and re-certified for the next election. The functions that these machines are carrying out are so easy.........it can be done by a decent calculator...........and run for years...........

Secretariat

10-29-2004, 05:20 AM

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
Recount? It's done by COMPUTER!!! Unless there is a hard drive crash, or a data crash of somesort, then the COUNT is PERFECT by definition....a recount would be absolutely 100% redundant.

There IS NO HUMAN ERROR INVOLVED like there can be with pulling a lever and punching a hole in a piece of paper.

There is no NEED for a recount when it comes to computers. Machines are perfect (as long as they are executing code that is error free)

How do you recount something that, by definition, has been counted 100% accurately?

I won't even get into hacking and whatever far out theories are out there. Voter manipulation and vote tampering has existed since the beginning of our country. Whatever the medium it manifests itself is inconsequential.

You fail to see the point Hopkins was making. IF there is tampering, human or code issues or hardware issues, THERE is no way to trace back the actual votes. With a paper trail one could at least match up a ledger sheet of registered voters and actual votes. It is not inconsequential if you had read the articles.

Why did Jeb Bush's own commission recommend a different type of voting process? Precisely because there was no way to recount, and verfiy that NO tampering had occurred.

It's not like it is a big thing to have a running tab to match up with voters. Can you imagine a business with no tab to verify sales receipts that day, but just trusting the money in the till is correct? That's what this is, it's inane.

There is no audit capability....I guess I should figure something like this with the way this govt. addresses budgets and deficits.
Obviously, no auditors or accountants have been consulted on this.

so.cal.fan

10-29-2004, 11:46 AM

Jeb?
GW will get a lot of extra votes in Florida because the people like Jeb.
My friend who lives in Panama City used to really dislike Jeb. She really changed her mind during the hurricanes.
Jeb was there working without sleep or even changing his clothes when they were in crisis. He wasn't hoopin' it up at the RCN with his brother and the rest of the Republicans.
He was in Florida helping people. Many people in Florida, including my friend, think Jeb is a great governor. My friend is a strong Democrat......who doesn't much like many of President Bush's policies, including the war in Iraq.......but she also doesn't like Kerry for dozens of reasons. After the hurricanes, she told me she thought Jeb was so great that she "may" vote for W, but she wished Jeb was running instead.
I think the majority of swing voters and Dems with Doubts will vote for the President, and they will make sure their "chad" is punched correctly. We shall see.

Equineer

10-29-2004, 02:04 PM

So.Cal.Fan,

Your friend has a curious way of evaluating politicians.

They all can make hay when there is a natural disaster. Visible concern and long-hours make them seem heroic... all without offending the special interests who backed them.

Imagine how an earthquake would make a hero out of the Governator... what a photo opportunity... ten minutes, shirtless and picking up heavy pieces of rubble... worth a million votes.

Natural disasters are a boon to whoever is in office if they have a knack for theater.

Shouldn't politicians be judged for something that differentiates them and their policies?

PaceAdvantage

10-29-2004, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by Secretariat
You fail to see the point Hopkins was making. IF there is tampering, human or code issues or hardware issues, THERE is no way to trace back the actual votes. With a paper trail one could at least match up a ledger sheet of registered voters and actual votes. It is not inconsequential if you had read the articles.

Why did Jeb Bush's own commission recommend a different type of voting process? Precisely because there was no way to recount, and verfiy that NO tampering had occurred.

It's not like it is a big thing to have a running tab to match up with voters. Can you imagine a business with no tab to verify sales receipts that day, but just trusting the money in the till is correct? That's what this is, it's inane.

There is no audit capability....I guess I should figure something like this with the way this govt. addresses budgets and deficits.
Obviously, no auditors or accountants have been consulted on this.

So I guess what you are suggesting then is that we never move into the 20th century (even though we are in the 21st) regarding the voting process.

What do you mean there is no audit capability? You can't request a hard copy of the votes?

I believe what you are trying to say is that there is no way in hell you will ever trust a computer based vote. BUT, you will trust humans not to toss old-style votes into the trash, or burn them, or discount them even though they are valid.....

I would think that between the two, the computer based votes are MUCH LESS open to foul play. But that's just my opinion.

JustRalph

10-29-2004, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by Equineer
Shouldn't politicians be judged for something that differentiates them and their policies?

yep........that is why I am voting for Bush.

ljb

10-29-2004, 05:46 PM

Just Ralph,
You must watch faux, remember the graph!

Equineer

10-29-2004, 08:01 PM

Originally posted by JustRalph
yep........that is why I am voting for Bush. I once worked for a man whose recruiting teams lugged around a huge banner: "Eagles don't flock, you have to find them one at a time."

What I later heard more frequently from Perot was, "Those dumb crows will flock every time," when we reviewed our competition!

JustRalph

10-29-2004, 09:09 PM

Originally posted by Equineer
I once worked for a man whose recruiting teams lugged around a huge banner: "Eagles don't flock, you have to find them one at a time."

What I later heard more frequently from Perot was, "Those dumb crows will flock every time," when we reviewed our competition!

If you want to call me dumb, just say it.

Tom

10-29-2004, 10:26 PM

Originally posted by Equineer
So.Cal.Fan,

Shouldn't politicians be judged for something that differentiates them and their policies?

She is judging Jeb as a LEADER, not as a politician. Kerry can't be judged as a leader, ergo your confusioin. He can, however, be judged as a turd sandwhich, which South Park so accurately pointed out. BTW, wouldn't one have to grant Cartman more leadership skills than Kerry?

JustRalph

10-29-2004, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by Tom
BTW, wouldn't one have to grant Cartman more leadership skills than Kerry?
Respect my authority!

http://students.ceid.upatras.gr/~maragkod/southpark%20cartman%20cop.jpg

Secretariat

10-29-2004, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
So I guess what you are suggesting then is that we never move into the 20th century (even though we are in the 21st) regarding the voting process.

What do you mean there is no audit capability? You can't request a hard copy of the votes?

I believe what you are trying to say is that there is no way in hell you will ever trust a computer based vote. BUT, you will trust humans not to toss old-style votes into the trash, or burn them, or discount them even though they are valid.....

I would think that between the two, the computer based votes are MUCH LESS open to foul play. But that's just my opinion.

Exactly...a simple ledger comparision of each voter's registration number, against the fact that a vote was cast...and each individual voter presented with a receipt of how they voted. Is that impossible in the 21st century? I don't know about you, but when I go to the ATM machine I kind of want my receipt and compare that with my balance the bank sends me at the end of the month, or online.

Here, we have no audit trail. That isn't 21st centiry technology, but more 20 BC.....

hcap

10-30-2004, 07:38 AM

The reality is we may not know who won for a while.
Too much is invested by both sides in what used to be a somewhat democratic process. I'm afraid the 2000 election allowed the notion to creep in, that laywers, judges and money should be the final arbiter.

http://onion.com/images/408/article3000.jpg

http://onion.com/news/index.php?issue=4043

lsbets

10-30-2004, 08:12 AM

I sincerely hope that whoever wins it is not close, there are no recounts, and no lawyers get involved. That would be bad for the country. I think we can all agree on that one point.

so.cal.fan

10-30-2004, 10:26 AM

Amen to that, lsbets!

PaceAdvantage

10-30-2004, 10:34 AM

I second that emotion!

ljb

10-30-2004, 10:39 AM

And I will join in here.
Let this be done Nov. 2 No lawyers, no courts let the people speak.

hcap

10-30-2004, 11:01 AM

Interesting article about 'The Incumbent Rule"

"In 1989, Nick Panagakis, president of Market Shares Corporation (the firm that polls for the Chicago Tribune) analyzed results from 155 surveys, most from the late 1980s, all conducted during the last week before an election. In a famous article in The Polling Report, Panagakis found that in 82% of the cases, the undecideds "broke" mostly to the challenger."

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/10/the_incumbent_r.html

I think it will help Kerry, but am afraid were might hear another tune by the "Supremes".

I have never seen the country so divided. And emotional.
Just look at what happens on this board!

boxcar

10-30-2004, 01:20 PM

sour grapes hcap wrote:

I think it will help Kerry, but am afraid were might hear another tune by the "Supremes".

Just remember, 'cap, who fired the first legal volley. The only thing you bemoan now is that the Repubs finshed the fight standing by beating the DemRats at their own game. If the activist Florida Supreme Court rulings had been allowed to stand, we wouldn't be hearing a peep out any liberal. In fact, you'd be signing the court's praises to the tune that "justice had been served".

Boxcar

hcap

10-30-2004, 02:51 PM

Box,

I was not blaming any party. In fact I did say earlier...

"Too much is invested by both sides in what used to be a somewhat democratic process."

After my basicaly non partisan post about the election winding up before the courts, you accuse me of sour grapes. Well !!

I did say...
"I have never seen the country so divided. And emotional.
Just look at what happens on this board!"

You proved my point.

In which case, how about answering my question about george bush and his must lie cheesesteak sandwich????

Tom

10-30-2004, 05:32 PM

If everyoone is so concerned with the voting machines and the registrations, let's hold off on the election for a year or two, until we sort it all out.

ljb

10-30-2004, 05:53 PM

Better yet let's go back about 5 years.

hcap

10-31-2004, 05:06 AM

Hacking the presidency?
(Let’s vote on it first)

"A dishonest presidential election sets aside the future economic, social and military will of the American people. There is substantial evidence that electronic voting machine corporations and political forces in some states could turn aside the electoral wishes of the U.S. populace on November 2 by means of election fraud.

by Tom Flocco

Philadelphia -- October 30, 2002 -- TomFlocco.com -- A series of curious election upsets in 2002, allegedly linked to untraceable vote fraud, could well have set the stage for another November presidential legal conundrum. "

According to Beverly Harris, author of Black Box Voting: Ballot Tampering in the 21st Century, a manipulation technique she found in Diebold Elections Systems’ AccuVote central vote tabulator is able to read totals from an untraceable bogus vote set within its software.

"By entering a 2-digit code in a hidden location, a second set of votes is created; and this set of votes can be changed in a matter of seconds, so that it no longer matches the correct votes," said the voting activist.

http://tomflocco.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=100&mode=&order=0&thold=0

hcap

10-31-2004, 05:21 AM

Ballot Boxing

Joel N. Shurkin
OCTOBER 29, 2004

Last month, U.S. Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski decided to try one of Maryland's new voting machines in Takoma Park. It was a brand-new Diebold AccuVote-TS. The state of Maryland has just spent $55 million for the ATM-like electronic voting devices to be used in the upcoming presidential election.

The AccuVote, acting just as a demonstration, offered two choices: "yes" and "no." Sen. Mikulski pressed "no." The machine registered "yes."

The cackling sound you heard was Avi Rubin, technical director of the Information Security Institute at Johns Hopkins. But, as Dr. Rubin will openly confess, it really wasn't funny.

http://www.jewishtimes.com/2435.stm

PaceAdvantage

11-01-2004, 12:29 AM

Hey Mr. Paranoia....why so paranoid? I know. Maybe your psyche is setting up a defense mechanism because the intelligent side of your brain is telling you Kerry is gonna lose.

hcap

11-01-2004, 05:57 AM

Paranoia? Read the articles.

One mans paranoia is anothers real concern. Only difference is the pesky facts.

11-01-2004, 06:00 AM

All the bad voter machines in the State wouldn't help Bush win Maryland. Maybe that lesbian Mikulski pressed the wrong side :D. It is OK to call a lesbian a lesbian, right?

Equineer

11-01-2004, 06:18 AM

Futile But Ultimate Desperation...

Neo-Con nutcases depict Kerry as the Anti-Christ!

Overview of Hell Houses

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hallo_he.htm

Tour A Traditional Hell House

http://www.hellhouse.4t.com/THE%20CELLAR.htm

Actual Description of Anti-Kerry Hell House

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news1004/hellhouse2004.html

What a sick way to "treat" people on Halloween....

hcap

11-01-2004, 06:44 AM

There was a rumour floating around the net that the Pope considered GW the anti-crist. Then of course denied by the Vatican.

Any "framing" of this political moment in knee-jerk fundamentalism, is bound to totally confuse the issue.
Just look at Islamic fundamentalism. Wouldn't it be ironic that because of misguided fire and brimstone types on both sides, we are still fighting the crusades?

Gee, I thought this was the 21st century, not medieval
europe. There are connections between real christianity and real Islam that should be focussed on. Both sides should look to real religeous leaders, not their respective limited literal loonies.

hcap

11-01-2004, 07:10 AM

According to Gallup's mega-final-ultra poll out Sunday evening, 30% of registered voters in Florida have already
voted, either through early voting or by absentee. Of those who have already voted, Kerry leads President Bush 51% to 43%.

According to the Des Moines Register poll out late Saturday evening, 27% of Iowa adults have already voted. And among those Kerry leads 52% to 41%.

Equineer

11-01-2004, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by hcap
According to Gallup's mega-final-ultra poll out Sunday evening, 30% of registered voters in Florida have already
voted, either through early voting or by absentee. Of those who have already voted, Kerry leads President Bush 51% to 43%.

According to the Des Moines Register poll out late Saturday evening, 27% of Iowa adults have already voted. And among those Kerry leads 52% to 41%. While early returns portend Victory, we must press forward until the field is ours!

And when she sees our bloody colours spread,
Then Victory begins to take her flight,
Resting herself upon my milk-white tent--
But come, my lords, to weapons let us fall;
The field is ours, Dubya, his veep, and all.

-Christopher Reeve as Marlowe's Tamburlaine