Big Ol' Smitty

What Dem is doing it other than some nuts on blogs and websites?

So your justification for opposing investigations of fraud is that you don't want the Dems to become a minority party?

Remember that Nader is challenging, not the Dems. And its not like 48% of the population is going to turn Republican (heel turn ) and the Dems are going to disappear off the face of the earth. C'mon guys.

Again, if it kills the Dems, why would you care? I would say that most people want transparent elections in which they know their vote was counted.

60 Minutes did a little segment on e-voting. Here's a link for those interested: http://home.comcast.net/~hugh.moore/60Minutes_BBV_100.w...

He was making a bold accusation about manipulation of exit polls and I asked for proof. He said it was a "conclusion" and I suggested that an unbiased person (which doesn't exist) might not have come to that conclusion. Why are you so adamant about not having a recount if you are so sure the whole process was kosher? If the Dems are "in denial" and that's keeping them from "getting a clue," what sweat is that off your (conservative) back?

Neither am I.

How can you prove the polls were manipulated? You're saying "they did". Convince us that you're correct. I mean, I certainly wouldn't put it past anyone on either side. But you can't just say "they did" without proof. Seeing as how they haven't even investigated what happened --- and no investigation seems to be forthcoming --- hard to do. -=Mike Then why do you say "they absolutely did"? Call it a logical conclusion based on the evidence. -=Mike ...and a very strong rightward bias.

I think you're giving the Dems too much credit. "I don't belong to an organized political party, I'm a Democrat" -Will Rogers

Based on this, I would support Thomas for Chief Justice. But only on the condition that he refers to Ginsberg and O'Connor as "my biotches."

How can you prove the polls were manipulated? You're saying "they did". Convince us that you're correct. I mean, I certainly wouldn't put it past anyone on either side. But you can't just say "they did" without proof. Seeing as how they haven't even investigated what happened --- and no investigation seems to be forthcoming --- hard to do. -=Mike Then why do you say "they absolutely did"?

How can you prove the polls were manipulated? You're saying "they did". Convince us that you're correct. I mean, I certainly wouldn't put it past anyone on either side. But you can't just say "they did" without proof. The polls not matching the results means either: a) the polls are effed up OR b) the results are effed up With e-voting, the results CAN easily be messed up.

3 times in 3 consecutive elections over 5 years hardly qualifies as "every single time". They've not lost regularly before the last 5 years. They started losing regularly and they immediately charge fraud. You didn't see Republicans claim fraud under Clinton. You didn't seem them claim fraud when the Dems owned the Congress --- and ACTUAL fraud did occur back then. -=Mike If that's so, then they should have claimed fraud.

That hardly proves that, as you said, "liberal groups spun the exit polls for the last 3 elections."

3 times in 3 consecutive elections over 5 years hardly qualifies as "every single time".

Cite, s'il vous plait. How would you know whether you were defrauded if you don't know if your vote was counted or not?

Are you sure? Then I guess the questions we should ask are: 1) How can we keep the polls from being politicized? 2) If we don't use them, how else can we detect fraud?

If I was Nader I'd probably tell them to go eff themselves.

Well said.

How are they any less scientific than any other poll? I think they were within the MOE in all states with paper trails. How are they biased more easily than any other poll? They're used in emerging democracies to detect fraud. What would you suggest would be a better reason to suspect fraud? You're kinda proving their point here. The fact that exit polls had been accurate prior to 2000 and then they started becoming skewed in the past 3 elections seems suspect.

I guess the variance in the exit polls and the final results is what they're pointing to as evidence of fraud on Bush's side.

I guess this stuff would be why they think that. I dunno.

Kerry's not challenging. Nader is.

How is this relevant? What does this mean? How do you fall into rhetoric? Again, why does he need you to speak for him?

Nothing? By any independents? I guess I'll just have to take your word for it. Why don't you let him speak for himself?