The Rebel Faction » Forums » General Discussion » Rebel Cafe » Did Bush Steal the Election?
Becomes A TNO Agent
Sadly, Balognius Maximus was one of the only ones I never got to see
Intergalactic "Hide and Seek" Champion
The exit poles were unreliable during this election because of the sample of voters taken.
An exit poler doesn't stand outside a poling place and ask every voter who he/she voted for- thats the purpose of the election- they stand and ask a sample of people who voted, during a certain period of the day (maybe several times at varying polling places).
Then they use statistics that say a cross section of 1000 people can predict the actions of 1,000,000 people. That can work- but only if the right sample is selected. They also take into account the percentage of voters who share certain characteristics, such a sex, age, ethnicity, etc as the sample. The GOP claims (and did claim all through the election coverage on election night) that the exit polls were unfairly accounting for percentages of the population. For example, the told an NBC anchor that they belived women were being incorrectly associated with a larger portion of the vote than was actually happening.
I think what happened was due to the larger turnout this year, the exit pollers samples were distorted, and some groups that would have accounted for a higher percentage in other election did not factor as greatly as in the past.
Also, the sheer number of voters meant that a good majority of people did not get asked for exit poll data- thus destroying the argument that simply because exit poll data showed Kerry ahead means the elction should have followed suit.
*Minor note- the reference to challengers is not credible. Every major news networked took great pains to metnion how much of a non-factor they were, as they simply did not challenger that many votes- period.
An exit poler doesn't stand outside a poling place and ask every voter who he/she voted for- thats the purpose of the election- they stand and ask a sample of people who voted, during a certain period of the day (maybe several times at varying polling places).
Then they use statistics that say a cross section of 1000 people can predict the actions of 1,000,000 people. That can work- but only if the right sample is selected. They also take into account the percentage of voters who share certain characteristics, such a sex, age, ethnicity, etc as the sample. The GOP claims (and did claim all through the election coverage on election night) that the exit polls were unfairly accounting for percentages of the population. For example, the told an NBC anchor that they belived women were being incorrectly associated with a larger portion of the vote than was actually happening.
I think what happened was due to the larger turnout this year, the exit pollers samples were distorted, and some groups that would have accounted for a higher percentage in other election did not factor as greatly as in the past.
Also, the sheer number of voters meant that a good majority of people did not get asked for exit poll data- thus destroying the argument that simply because exit poll data showed Kerry ahead means the elction should have followed suit.
*Minor note- the reference to challengers is not credible. Every major news networked took great pains to metnion how much of a non-factor they were, as they simply did not challenger that many votes- period.
Intergalactic "Hide and Seek" Champion
Great, just great.
Another freaking stolen election. Its interesting to see a one-party system. Republicans control every federal government thingy, apparently with at least a little bit of fraud on their side, and the odds of this changing any time soon are small.
Thank gawds I don't live there.
I disagree with this statement Dolash, particularly the last part.
Just 4 years ago the US finished an 8 year term by a Democratic President. I heard no one claiming the Republican party was dead in the water. Political change will happen again, possibly in four years. The Democrats controlled the US congress for several decades, but eventually relinquished it. I can say with a good amount of certaintly that they will retake it at some point in the future.
I also find a bit short-sighted to claim this election stolen. Bush wom the popular vote by 4 million, which, by the same arguments given by Democrats for the last 4 years make Bush the American people's choice for president.
Lots of attention is always given to the Republican's "stealing" the election in 2000, but no one ever mentions that fact that merely 2 or 3 days before the election, the Democrats leaked to the press that George Bush had a DUI- in 197_ (cant remember exact date but it was decades ago.) The tactic was cheap, and had no bearing on his ability to be the president (considering how he gave up alcohol years ago)- yet it almost surely supressed the Conservative Christian Vote- which is in many ways similar to that tactic republicans are accused of.
The idea that the Republican's control every phase of the US government, "with fraud on their side" is also an uniformed statement.
The Republican majorities in Congress are rather slim (though the grew slightly during the election) and can not garuntee passage of any legislation (especially with the fillibuster privillege in the Senate.) The Supreme Court is split almost totally evenly between liberals, conservatives and a few swing voters. As for the Presidency, there can only be 1 president, and so that branch of government is always monopolized for one party or the other.
Lastly, Palast's article seems to have the following tone:
If the Republican's won fair and square (winning both the electoral college and the popular vote) they must have cheated.
The 2000 election was especially dubious as the electoral college and popular vote were split in opposite directions. However, when Palast sees the Republicans legitamtly winning an election, he claims that the democrats were amazingly cheated.
If that's so why did John Kerry Concede on the morning following the election? Al Gore asked for a recount and felt like he had a mandate to be President. Kerry obviously didn't feel that way.
Palast's underlying message is that the Democrats should win every election, and that if they don't it's because the Republican's cheated.
fuck that duck
Kas, do you even know what you're talking about? That little quote of yours has nothing to do with provisional ballots...
And your comments are still racist, whether or not you say "huh".
And your comments are still racist, whether or not you say "huh".
[size=1]"So the woman asked me what I wanted on the sandwich and I said I do not care it is for a duck, and she was like oh then it's free. I was not aware that ducks eat for free at Subway. It's like give me a chicken fajita sub, but don't worry about ringing it up, it is for a duck.”
-Mitch Hedberg
[/size]
we'll fight in the shade
Demosthenes X:
That shows a huge ammount of contempt for a lot of people, not in the least the soldiers dying every day in Iraq. America was founded on a couple basic principles, one of them being the freedom to say what you want. That is, apparently, why there are people dying in Iraq, too. So to say "Stop whining" to someone who raises some very real concerns about the election of the most powerful man in the world is ridiculous, imo.
About Iraq,
I agree that the war there has gotten very messy and has suffered setbacks caused by poor handling of it.
But if Kerry had been elected, the FIRST thing he would have done was pulled all the American troops out of the country (he stated that was his objective). The insurgents would have taken over the country and imposed a Taliban/Saddam-type regime. I promise you that.
In this scenario, all we would have is exactly the same thing we had when we started, the deaths of those soldiers would be in vain, and America would lose respect for not "cleaning up it's mess"
"Respected in the World" my ass.
Face it, Saddam was an evil tyrant who murdered many innocent people, and NOBODY except Bush had the fucking balls to stand up to him. America and the world is much better off with him in prison.
I'm glad we don't have a coward as a President.
My two cents. Now, I'll go back into my flame-resistant cellar.
[22:14] RogueLightSider: Omnae should let you know when he knocks you up methinks.
[22:14] LeiaOrganaSolo39: haha he must be really teeny, I didnt feel a thing!
friend of the sleeping pill
[size=4]YOUR ALARM BELLS[/size]
[size=4]YOUR ALARM BELLS[/size]
[size=4]THEY SHOULD BE RINGING[/size]
[size=5]THIS IS THE GLOAMING[/size]
[size=4]YOUR ALARM BELLS[/size]
[size=4]THEY SHOULD BE RINGING[/size]
[size=5]THIS IS THE GLOAMING[/size]
Internaut
Demosthenes X:The ballots this man is claiming are simply being thrown away are provisional ballots. Since you appear to be arguing on his side, I’m asking you if you know what a provisional ballot is, and how it is meant to be used.
Kas, do you even know what you're talking about? That little quote of yours has nothing to do with provisional ballots...
Demosthenes X:Are they, or do you just want them to be? I think the latter.
And your comments are still racist, whether or not you say "huh".
friend of the sleeping pill
the gloaming
Dis aliter visum. <br>IQ Rating: 140
"But if Kerry had been elected, the FIRST thing he would have done was pulled all the American troops out of the country (he stated that was his objective)."
No, he didn't state hat. I watched all three debates and he stated repeatedly that it was NOT his objective. Because he was asked that question several times.
Nice try.
To the rest of the thread, no comment.
EDIT: except to say, it's a POLL. Not a pole.
No, he didn't state hat. I watched all three debates and he stated repeatedly that it was NOT his objective. Because he was asked that question several times.
Nice try.
To the rest of the thread, no comment.
EDIT: except to say, it's a POLL. Not a pole.
[URL="http://www.starwarsepics.com"]Star Wars Epics[/URL] :: Like Star Wars, but with better dialogue.
assistant regional titus & epic space jesus
Shit...I just had a mental image of the election through way of best pole-dance...
