Skip to comments.UC Berkeley prof proves Bush stole election!!!
Posted on 11/18/2004 1:17:42 PM PST by ArcLight
- Irregularities associated with electronic voting machines may have awarded 130,000 excess votes or more to President George W. Bush in Florida.
- Compared to counties with paper ballots, counties with electronic voting machines were significantly more likely to show increases in support for President Bush between 2000 and 2004. This effect cannot be explained by differences between counties in income, number of voters, change in voter turnout, or size of Hispanic/Latino population.
- In Broward County alone, President Bush appears to have received approximately 72,000 excess votes.
- We can be 99.9% sure that these effects are not attributable to chance.
(Excerpt) Read more at ucdata.berkeley.edu ...
And series. I'm getting in the shower.
I'm always glad when some 60's reject gets the acid flashbacks they were promised.
The Left is projecting again. They cheat all the time, so they assume that the Republicans did, too.
Oh, and everyone knows Berzerkly wouldn't have any type of agenda, right?
~~~ and very series.
How can these intellectuals be so stupid?????
I sincerely hope the Democrats spend the next four years going on about how they wuz robbed. It should prevent them from doing any helpful self-examination or doing the work necessary to win election sin the future.
Yaaaahhhhhoooooo! Overturn the election! Send in the lawyers!
Rush was talking today about how these lib professors want a multicultural society, government blah blah blah but in higher education the percentage of Republican educators is extremely low.
These folks are very good at the double standard.
We can also be 99.9% sure that these effects are not attributable to anyone whose opinion we would actually value.
The future PhD's of America have spoken................be afraid....be V-E-R-Y afraid.........
What is the name of the 'prof'? It's not stated in the article.
Dang. I hope I can get my DC hotel deposit back.
Oy vey! Set beebers to stune!
Get lost you illogical irrational intellectual midget.
That wouldn't quite make up for the 381,000 votes Bush carried the state by.
130,000 down, 300,000 to go. Of course these counties are run by dems.
The following hypothesis:
"electronic voting machines implemented in Florida precincts between 2000 and 2004 elections were responsible for eliminating fraudulent inflation of the Democratic vote in 2000"
Accounts for all his data I believe.
Hmmm and Berkley is in what state? Ya thats what I thought. I bet it was GWB's brother that made them use those electronic voting machines too.
Really isn't it time to unite this country. I say we give the presidency to John Kerry...to unite the country.
Real scientific, innit? I can't help noticing the absence of one possible explanation for the discrepancy--John Kerry. Maybe these "excess" voters wanted no part of the guy. Oh, but that couldn't be it...naah. :-)
Maybe it can be explained by the fact that humans aren't exactly lab animals. They have a mind of their own.
ROFLMAO at "excess votes" :?)
Hey dumbass professor I live in Broward county and got my whole family aunts, uncles, sisters, brother in laws etc.. to vote. So there goes your Broward County theory. They normally had not voted.
The lawyers have been there long before the election - with all the "slolen" scenarios ready to go. What' bowled them over is that " W" got so many MORE votes than they expected - not just in Floria - but across the board (It's not like Florida was a anomaly) and they are therefore having a little harder and longer time covering their scam scenario
- We can be 99.9% sure that these effects are not attributable to chance.
They are starting out with the assumption that there is no way in hell Bush could recieve more votes than 2000.
Figures lie and liars figure.....
Even if his thesis is true, a alternative hypothesis could also be responsible. Electronic voting machines are more resistant to traditional fraud, therefore democrat vote fraud is suppressed.
This is the university that last year came out with the "study" purporting to prove that conservatives were stupider than liberals.
"- We can be 99.9% sure that these effects are not attributable to chance."
Professor Gore, allow me to posit that those effects indeed are not due to random chance, rather that the 72,000 votes cited for Bush were in fact, votes for Bush.
Thank you. You may now go back to your gay pride, nude parade.
Hmmm, let's see. This study ignored:
1. Bush was not an incumbant in 2000
2. Gore was a VP incumbant in 2000
3. We were not at war in 2000
4. We did not have a traitor running for president in 2000
5. The MSM had not been busted for blantent attempts to fraudulently affect the elections in 2000
6. Bush had not passed any tax reforms in 2000, as he had not been in oval office yet
7. The economy was headed down, not up in 2000. Vice versa for 2004.
8. The WTC had not been leveled by terrorists in 2000.
Geez, how many more variables do you need to exclude to support the hypothesis that Bush's increase was due to electronic voting machines?
Because the actual vote count doesn't mean anything.
The fault, dear prof, is not in our ballots,
but in yourself.
Conservatives stupider than liberals? Well, this study pretty much proves the opposite. What kind of numbskull would be impressed by this? The obvious explanation--that Bush won over a lot more voters this time around--is unbearable to these guys, so they come up with a nutzo hypothesis that turns Bush's victory into a scam. Some people will go to any lengths to avoid reality.
The counties are not listed, so I don't know if there is another logical explanation. The study did not also consider that maybe the electronic voting counties had more population growth than the state as a whole from 2000 to 2004. The correlation could also be random noise.
We must all work diligently in the coming months to convince progressives that the Democratic Party has let them down. They must abandon the party. Their only recourse is to join and work for the Green Party moving forward. I may even register as a Green Party member to swell their voter registration rolls. Divide and conquer.
Begin with putting all known progressives in your sphere of influence on the Green Party mail list from their website. Great fun. Start inundating them with information now.
He is right this did not happen because of "chance."
No doubt the "professor" will revise his/her statement to say 381,001 votes were found.
It's funny how liberals assume the world acts like them (steal elections, hate people, discriminate, dope smokers, fudge packers, etc.)
The evidence for this is the statistical significance of terms in our model that gauge the average impact of e-voting across Floridas 67 counties and statistical interaction effects that gauge its larger-than-average effect in counties where Vice President Gore did the best in 2000 and slightly negative effect in the counties where Mr. Bush did the best in 2000.
They call Al Gore "Vice President Gore", and yet they call George Bush "Mr. Bush". It's clear they don't even think he's the President!
"were significantly more likely to show increases in support for President Bush between 2000 and 2004"
And .. as usual the Professor is too stooooooopid to find out that the reason for the increase is that DEMOCRATS WERE VOTING FOR BUSH.
This is the most egregious error from a scientific point of view. It is quite possible (indeed, quite likely) that the counties that went electronic in 2004 had some of their hanky-panky pared down as compared to 2000.
The President won, Professor; give it a rest.
Saw this earlier on DU.....they're over there practically wetting themselves that this MIGHT overturn the election!
They aren't stupid.
They have an A G E N D A!!!!