Yes I know this is a dead horse. Still, as we are moving away from the ugly election of 2004, it might be easier to discuss it.
OK, the results of 2004 were almost identical except for:
New Hampshire: Went Bush 2000 and Kerry 2004
New Mexico: Went Gore 2000 and Bush 2004
Iowa: Went Gore 2000 and Bush 2004
So, why did it come down to Ohio?
Ohio was an easy target. I lived there from 2000-2004. The economy tanked.
But…the ugly episode of same sex marriage was brought into the political arena when the Mass. Supreme Court allowed same sex marriage.
I’m thinking this was the one issue that won Ohio for Bush and thus the election. Iowa, New Hampshire and New Mexico could have flipped and it wouldn’t have mattered.
Bush won by getting people in Ohio to vote against same sex marriage and not against the economy in 2004.
So, I believe if same sex marriage wasn’t an issue, Ohio goes Kerry and Kerry wins.
But you’re falling for a common fallacy-- it’s like when you watch a basketball game and think that the last few minutes are what determined the winner. Every minute counts just as much as the final minutes. And every battleground state could be considered the key. Florida was close last time (actually would have gone to Gore if all the ballots had been recounted), but clearly went to Bus this time. Maybe Florida was the key, not Ohio. Also, you’re basically assuming that Kerry shoudl have won, but something went haywire. Why not look at some states that Kerry narrowly won and ask why they didn’t tip over the Bush?
The thing that turned the election was the security issue. In the end, people felt safer with Bush, rightly or wrongly. The ObL tape a few days before the election may have scared enough people…
My acrobat reader is currently screwed up, so I can’t read the document right now. I do know about the discrepancy between exit polling and counted ballots, which I believe is a real problem (not necessarily conspiratorial - it could be Democrats have a higher percentage of mistaken votes, because of higher illiteracy, English as a 2nd language, disabilities, etc - at any rate, I think it warrants investigation to find out what the heck is going on so people’s intents are know to be being recorded correctly).
Alright. So, someone, please, if you can without this getting heated and it turning into a typical “You’re crazy”/“You’re denying reality” argument - explain why you think the GAO report hasn’t gotten lots of mainstream coverage. Nothing dismissive and snarky, please - I’ll freely admit I’m an idiot upfront to save you the trouble - what makes the GAO report not shocking or newsworthy to the mainstream?
Christ, we’ve been over this ad nausium. The report only claims that there is a possibility of errors having been made, not that errors actually were made. But that’s enough for the wing-nuts to claim Bush “stole” the election. BTW, there is nothing that would prevent errors from having tilted in favor of Kerry.
The article also brings up the tired old canard, long since debuinked, about how exit polls proved Kerry should have won in Ohio.
We need a sticky here for this so it’s not dredged up every month…
Sorry, I didn’t mean to express exasperation towards you, but the post you were resonding to. I don’t remember the names of the threads, but there are quite a few and some are pretty recent. I’ll do a little searching and see if I can find a good one.
Lost of back-and-forth, so you’re going to have to draw your own conclusion. **UnlceBeer **was particular good and analysing the claims, so I’d pay particular attention to his posts.
And, before someone resurrects the “exit polls prove Kerry should’ve won” meme, here’s one good artilce explaining what happened from the Washington Post. You can easily google up others.
Prelimary results leaked out too early, and a server crash prevented a midday update from getting out on time (hence what appeared to be, but wasn’t actually, a surprisingly large swing in exit polling from morning to evening)
Early morning exit polling is skewed due to demographics of those voting at that time of day. For example, the early morning participation in the exit poll was 59% female.
In reality, the Bush win was a combination of several factors, the margin of victory being so close that any one of them could easily be credited with giving Bush his second term.
While many people point to the same-sex marriage initiatives as being a key factor, it remains unclear exactly how much of an effect it had nationally. What has become clear is that the Republicans were successfully able to motivate a large sector of “evangelical” Christians to register and vote. The topic of the election was broadly discussed for the first time in many churches across the country. The evangelicals were a clear target for those in the administration, particularly Karl Rove.
Americans are historically reluctant to vote against an incumbent during wartime. And when it comes to national security issues, America is a very conservative country. Why that is is open to debate. Conservatives might argue that some liberal policies often don’t “put America first,” and that this is a dangerous posture during wartime. As a confirmed liberal, I would simply say that whenever it comes to war, destruction, and killing people, the Republicans are the obvious leadership choice. :rolleyes:
For the second straight election, an already weak Democratic party chose to run a piece of corrugated cardboard instead of an actual human being as their candidate. Americans have proven time and again that they want a President who can pass the Beer Test, irrespective of intellect or other so-called qualifications. Kerry, like Gore, was an easy target, even before he made the crucial “flip-flop” mistake that may very well have cost him the election. The Republicans were also able to turn his service in Vietnam–largely considered one of his chief strengths going into the election–into a liability. A big one. “Swift-boat” became a new verb in our language. Dirty? Yes. Fallacious? Well, if you ask me. But no dirtier than politics in this country has historically been. In addition, the Democratic strategy never really matured beyond a concerted attack on George Bush, which–however well-founded it may have been–wasn’t quite enough to sell the public. Indeed, one could make the point that this did more in the end to motivate conservative voters than it did to galvanize liberals.
You’d only come to that conclusion if you refuse to believe the article.
The article perfectly well explains why early data differed significantly from the final result, which is what the conspiracy theorists were bitching about. So, if that article doesn’t debunk the claim, what’s your convincing evidence that the claim ever had any merit?
Yeah. Hard to read thread. Not a loaded question: what sort of evidence do you (or anybody) think would turn up if there had been actual voter fraud? That’s the frustrating thing for me.
And if you don’t believe that info, here’s another article from Slate that goes a bit deeper, and lays the blame on the media outlets that aren’t careful enough with the data they get.
Sure, there’s some finger pointing back and forth between the media and the polling folks, but both agree that the exit poll numbers, as reported by the media, were the problem, not the actual results at the end of the day. It’s just a matter of whom you want to blame.
