What was the last word on the possibility of a stolen 2004 election?

Great Debates
#1

I remember reading lists of phenomena such as Ohio switching to Bush at the last minute, New Mexico counties only going to Bush in districts with voting machines, the GAO saying voting machines were demonstrably unreliable and manipulatable, some group of university statisticians or something saying that there was something very funny about the results, and so on and so on. I remember being pretty unsettled by this at the time, but it seems nothing came of it.

Was the matter definitively put to rest? Or did it just lose steam? Or what?

ETA: Here’s a Wikipedia article about it for further information. Full disclosure: I haven’t read it yet.

#2

Ah, sorry, that wikipedia article isn’t as relevant as I thought it would be.

#3

I have that phrase framed in needlepoint in my rec room.

#4

Then try Rolling Stone.

#5

Says it all, right there.

#6

Please expand on this.

#7

I remember that article now. I was wondering if there was ever a definitive response to the concerns expressed in that article.

#8

Who could definitively respond? I think the “just lose steam” thing applies here.

#9

If you can’t grok what’s so pathetic about it, there’s no possible way I could explain it.

#10

I found this response from Farahd Manjoo which seems to make some pretty damning points against Kennedy’s argument.

Apparently exit polls aren’t so super-reliable as Kennedy thinks (and I remember that was one of the most important claims back in the post-2004 discussion) and the leads in the battleground states in the exit polling were within the margin of error anyway…

-KR

#11

Okay, this is foolishness. There’s nothing pathetic about it, and you’re clearly reaching to insert some kind of meaning into the comment that is not there.

I wrote the OP, then though “I ought to provide some more concrete background,” then saw therte was a Wikipedia article on the topic, and so edited the OP to provide the link, but didn’t want to give the mistaken impression that I’d read it, so noted that I hadn’t read it. It was provided merely to provide more background for the OP.

#12

Of course, then I find this response to Manjoo, from one of Manjoo’s main sources of information, saying Manjoo got it all wrong.

Augh now I remember why I gave up on this debate before…

#13

In other words, you had a question about which there is copious material already written available all over the internet, on this very messageboard and with its own wikipedia entry FFS, but you decided to start a thread before doing even the most cursory bit of thought or effort.

#14

The last word is there was never any real evidence of election fraud in Ohio. It was just sour-grapes whining by Democrats who couldn’t believe that Bush legitimately won the election.

The Salon article gives you a flavor for the kind of thinking necessary to believe in this kind of thing.

Consider also that Robert Kennedy Jr. authored another article in Rolling Stone that was so embarrassing they removed it from their archives. (That was anti-vax, but it gives an indication of how seriously to take him.)

Regards,
Shodan

#15

That’s not the central thrust of the report. The central thrust was that the 2004 election was almost certainly stolen. And it made its point quite powerfully. Most people are mollified by the result in 2008, but as all the evidence is that this election will be VERY CLOSE I hope the Democrats look hard at this data and take some steps to see that whatever happened, doesnt happen again. Especially in battleground states.

#16

In other words, the OP asks if there is any more information and you respond that all the information is readily available. Why not just post a LMGTFY link?

#17

In other words, seeing what people know and have to say on a board full of intelligent and coolheaded people is one among many other avenues of research which I pursued.

#18

Just to clarify, which report are you referring to?

#19

The anti-vax thing definitely makes me dubious about Kennedy in the abstract, but on the other hand, I know people can make terrible arguments in one field yet make perfectly good arguments on other topics so I still try to read his stolen-election argument on its own merits to the extent possible. (When I’m not sure what those merits are, though, due to lack of background or expertise on my own part, I do keep in mind Kennedy’s ability to misreason himself into an anti-vax stand.)

#20

the one that’s linked to in the text I quoted, of course. What other report would I be referring to.