humanities.misc

On Jan 9, 11:26=A0am, RW wrote:
> So here's another election where all the polls were showing Obama
> winning, some by double digits, and then Hillary wins by 3%. I took
> statistics in college, and a poll that's done right isn't going to be
> off by more than + or - 3%. Max Cleland was leading in all the polls,
> then he lost his election for the Senate in Georgia. John Kerry was
> leading in all the exit polls in Ohio, then he lost the election.
> Again, this is statistically impossible. Folks, this election was
> rigged. They rigged the elections in 2000 and 2004. They've got us
> using voting machines now that tests show can very easily be hacked
> and don't even leave a paper trail to allow an honest recount.


This is yet another one of those poll-defying, evidence defying,
Republican boosting (Repugs *want* to run against Hillary), mysterious
occurrences that keep on happening and just when the Republicans need
them to happen, too. The fringe, wacko right just can't lose when
electronic voting machines are in the picture. Polling data which you
could set your watch by for the last 75 years suddenly doesn't mean
jack shit, Hillary goes from losing by double digits in NH to winning
easily, in 2004 Howard Dean mysteriously goes from massive popularity
to no popularity at all overnight, John Kerry mysteriously goes from
winning to losing in Ohio and about a dozen other states, The French
are suddenly flying out of their chairs to vote for the most Bush
like, warmongering neocon candidate they can possibly find, piss poor
Mexicans suddenly agree that they aren't poor enough and they elect a
Chimp clone who feels the same way, Canada goes from loathing Bush to
electing a Dubya admirer and nobody suspects anything at all. It's
time to start suspecting something because it's right there, begging
to be noticed.


Diebold, the gift that keeps on giving. And taking and flipping and
selectively erasing.