"Not once did they suggest that perhaps democrats are overrepresented in the polling data outside the election booths. " So you're suggesting that Democrats are "over-represented" because they vote more often and vote in larger numbers than Republicans? So then why these close elections? How about the mis count in FloriDUH. How do you "mis-count" 18,000 votes? Interestingly enough all these Shennenigans happen in swing states like Ohio and FloriDUH. http://www.forbes.com/security/2006/11/21/florida-voting-recount-tech-security-cx_ll_1121voting.html Electronic Voting Dispute Goes To Court Lisa Lerer, 11.21.06, 5:45 PM ET A dispute over the results of a Florida congressional election earlier this month has made its way to the court system, where it may ultimately influence the way elections are conducted across the country. On Monday, Republican congressional candidate Vern Buchanan declared victory in Florida's 13th District after machine and manual recounts gave him a 369-vote lead over Democratic nominee Christine Jennings. Minutes later, Jennings filed a lawsuit in Leon County Circuit Court requesting a new election. A group of voters represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and the nonprofit Election Protection Coalition filed a similar suit in a Florida state court in Tallahassee today. =================================== Both suits allege that faulty touchscreen voting machines skewed results by improperly processing up to 18,000 ballots cast in the race. Known as undervotes, these votes show selections in all the other races on the ballot but do not have a vote recorded for either candidate in the congressional race. The Florida Department of State's election division recorded 238,249 votes overall in the race. =================================== How the F**K is that possible? Oh wait, we're dealing with republikkklans here. Anything is possible in the land of Fairy tale WMD's. LOL!!
At some point the question needs to be asked. So why isn't anyone serving Jail time over this? The whole world and the US ( in its usual meddling in other nations affairs) itself uses polling data to certify elections. Yet we are to belive that polling in the US is faulty? I think it's because a republikklan majority is a virtual reality. The people don't exist in the first place, so there is no one to "poll". http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...nov22,0,1009612.story?coll=orl-home-headlines Analysis: Ballots favored Dems Sarasota's 'undervotes' were examined in 5 state races. Jim Stratton | Sentinel Staff Writer Posted November 22, 2006 GRAPHICS Graphic: Trending Democratic RELATED STORIES Sarasota vote results spur suit Nov 21, 2006 GOP claims recount in Sarasota -- for now Nov 18, 2006 The group of nearly 18,000 voters that registered no choice in Sarasota's disputed congressional election solidly backed Democratic candidates in all five of Florida's statewide races, an Orlando Sentinel analysis of ballot data shows. Among these voters, even the weakest Democrat -- agriculture-commissioner candidate Eric Copeland -- outpaced a much-better-known Republican incumbent by 551 votes. The trend, which continues up the ticket to the race for governor and U.S. Senate, suggests that if votes were truly cast and lost -- as Democrat Christine Jennings maintains -- they were votes that likely cost her the congressional election. Republican Vern Buchanan's 369-vote victory was certified by state officials Monday. His camp says that, although people may have skipped the race -- intentionally or not -- there is no evidence that votes went missing. But the results of the Sentinel analysis, two experts said, warrant additional investigation. "Wow," University of Virginia political analyst Larry Sabato said. "That's very suggestive -- I'd even say strongly suggestive -- that if there had been votes recorded, she [Jennings] would have won that House seat." David Dill, an electronic-voting expert at Stanford University, put it this way: "It seems to establish with certainty that more Democrats are represented in those undervoted ballots." The Sentinel reviewed records of 17,846 touch-screen ballots that included no vote in the tightly contested 13th District congressional race to determine whom voters selected in other major races. The analysis of the so-called "undervotes" examined the races for U.S. Senate, governor, attorney general, chief financial officer and agriculture commissioner. The results showed that the undervoted ballots skewed Democratic in all of those races, even in the three races in which the county as a whole went Republican. In the governor's race, for example, Republican Charlie Crist won handily in Sarasota, easily beating Democrat Jim Davis. But on the undervoted ballots, Davis finished ahead by almost 7 percentage points. In the agriculture commissioner's race, Republican Charles Bronson beat Copeland by a double-digit margin among all voters. But on the undervoted ballots, Copeland won by about 3 percentage points.
i could think of several reasons why the argument might be flawed. first it somehow indicates that republicans are finally really the "better" people. but it could well be that their private behavior is kind of hypocratic cover up for their way of dealing with people in their business lifes. including politics. it has become obvious that you can claim christianity as your reference point while still go to war quite easily. or you can preach against sodomite whatever and still have a little gay affair running. second is that i would think what i call liberal life as such includes more "giving", which includes with how much empathy you treat your coworkers and employees. maybe liberals do good things in a different way ...
If Bush, Dick and the RepubliKKKlan "IM-moral minority" hypocrites were running a campaign against Jesus, this is what their ad would look like: <a href="http://imageshack.us"><img src="http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/6210/bushthedicklq9.gif" border="0" alt="Image Hosted by ImageShack.us" /></a>
Who really cares? By Thomas Sowell Tuesday, November 28, 2006 More frightening than any particular beliefs or policies is an utter lack of any sense of a need to test those beliefs and policies against hard evidence. Mistakes can be corrected by those who pay attention to facts but dogmatism will not be corrected by those who are wedded to a vision. One of the most pervasive political visions of our time is the vision of liberals as compassionate and conservatives as less caring. It is liberals who advocate "forgiveness" of loans to Third World countries, a "living wage" for the poor and a "safety net" for all. But these are all government policies -- not individual acts of compassion -- and the actual empirical consequences of such policies are of remarkably little interest to those who advocate them. Depending on what those consequences are, there may be good reasons to oppose them, so being for or against these policies may tell us nothing about who is compassionate or caring and who is not. A new book, titled "Who Really Cares" by Arthur C. Brooks examines the actual behavior of liberals and conservatives when it comes to donating their own time, money, or blood for the benefit of others. It is remarkable that beliefs on this subject should have become conventional, if not set in concrete, for decades before anyone bothered to check these beliefs against facts. What are those facts? People who identify themselves as conservatives donate money to charity more often than people who identify themselves as liberals. They donate more money and a higher percentage of their incomes. It is not that conservatives have more money. Liberal families average 6 percent higher incomes than conservative families. You may recall a flap during the 2000 election campaign when the fact came out that Al Gore donated a smaller percentage of his income to charity than the national average. That was perfectly consistent with his liberalism. So is the fact that most of the states that voted for John Kerry during the 2004 election donated a lower percentage of their incomes to charity than the states that voted for George W. Bush. Conservatives not only donate more money to charity than liberals do, conservatives volunteer more time as well. More conservatives than liberals also donate blood. According to Professor Brooks: "If liberals and moderates gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the blood supply of the United States would jump about 45 percent." Professor Brooks admits that the facts he uncovered were the opposite of what he expected to find -- so much so that he went back and checked these facts again, to make sure there was no mistake. What is the reason why some people are liberals and others are conservatives, if it is not that liberals are more compassionate? Fundamental differences in ideology go back to fundamental assumptions about human nature. Based on one set of assumptions, it makes perfect sense to be a liberal. Based on a different set of assumptions, it makes perfect sense to be a conservative. The two visions are not completely symmetrical, however. For at least two centuries, the vision of the left has included a belief that those with that vision are morally superior, more caring and more compassionate. While both sides argue that their opponents are mistaken, those on the left have declared their opponents to be not merely in error but morally flawed as well. So the idea that liberals are more caring and compassionate goes with the territory, whether or not it fits the facts. Those on the left proclaimed their moral superiority in the 18th century and they continue to proclaim it in the 21st century. What is remarkable is how long it took for anyone to put that belief to the test -- and how completely it failed that test. The two visions are different in another way. The vision of the left exalts the young especially as idealists while the more conservative vision warns against the narrowness and shallowness of the inexperienced. This study found young liberals to make the least charitable contributions of all, whether in money, time or blood. Idealism in words is not idealism in deeds. Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy.