Exit polls. OTsour grapes!

[David Ilvedson]

Congratulations!   Now let's get back to pianos...!

David I.



----- Original message ---------------------------------------->
From: pianolover 88 <pianolover88@hotmail.com>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Received: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 22:15:20 -0800
Subject: Re: Exit polls. OTsour grapes!

>FOUR MORE YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!  POPULAR AND ELECTORAL!!!!!!\

>AND DASCHLE IS HISTORY TOO!!!!! YES!!!!

>Terry Peterson



>----Original Message Follows----
>From: &quot;Sarah Fox&quot; &lt;sarah@graphic-fusion.com&gt;
>Reply-To: Pianotech &lt;pianotech@ptg.org&gt;
>To: &quot;Pianotech&quot; &lt;pianotech@ptg.org&gt;
>Subject: Re: Exit polls. OT warning OT
>Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 01:05:23 -0500

>Hi Thump,

>&gt; Gee. If the exit polls show Kerry ahead, why are the
>&gt; vote tallies giving Bush a  veritable landslide?

>Very simple.  At one time the election was decided by the voters.  In 2000,
>the election was decided for the first time not by the voters, but by the
>attorneys and partisan judges.  Now, in 2004, the election is being decided
>not by the voters, but by the attorneys, judges, and (most importantly) the
>computer hackers.

>Of course there's fraud even without the touch-screen, paperless voting.  A
>friend and I were certain we would be out of town (in Ohio, where we're
>registered) on election day, so we opted for absentee ballots.  The ballots
>were pretty suspicious.  Nader was on both ballots, even though he had been
>disqualified in Ohio.  There was a white insert in my materials, placed very
>inconspicuously between the back pages of the booklet, explaining that Nader
>was no longer a valid candidate and that votes for Nader would not be
>counted.  Of course I would have seen the insert only AFTER having punched
>Nader's chad (if he were my preferred candidate), and so my ballot would be
>invalidated if I were to punch out any other chad.  In contrast, my friend's
>absentee ballot information included a salmon-colored notice inserted
>carefully between the pages towards the front of the booklet, where the
>presidential candidates were listed, so it would be impossible not to see it
>before mistakingly punching Nader's chad.  Why were her materials assembled
>with clarity and user friendliness in mind, and why were mine assembled to
>be unclear, even deceptive?  My part of town is heavily Democrat.  Hers is
>heavily Republican.  Go figure...

>Along the same lines, we had people standing in long lines in the rain in
>Columbus for up to FIVE HOURS, for lack of voting machines and poll workers.
>We're talking about elderly people who could not stand for FIVE HOURS, as
>well as mothers with little children at their sides who had to get their
>little ones fed and put to bed.  A large proportion of these people just
>gave up and left, without having voted.  There has been a Federal ruling
>that these people must be provided paper ballots under these extraordinary
>circumstances, but the attorneys are having a hard time interpreting this
>ruling -- so no paper ballots have been issued.  These long lines apparently
>occurred ONLY in the poorer parts of town where the turnout would have been
>more heavily Democratic.  In the more affluent areas with a more solid
>Republican stronghold, voters were in an out in a jiffy -- no more than 10
>min.  Apparently nobody has gotten the bright idea that voting machines from
>the more affluent neighborhoods (whose polling locations closed long ago)
>could be relocated to the less affluent areas to move the voters along.
>After all, why would the Republican controlled board of elections want to do
>a single thing to help a Democrat to vote?

>So, it would appear that every trick in the book, as well as some newly
>invented tricks, are being used by the Republican-controlled board of
>elections to sway the vote for Mr. Bush.  All this election trickery is
>selectively directed towards Democratic areas, not Republican areas, at
>least in Central Ohio.

>The most recent Gallup polling put the Ohio vote at 50% Kerry to 46% Bush
>among likely voters, with a 3% margin of error, meaning that the chances of
>Bush winning the state were less than 5%.  In my estimation, the magnitude
>of the walk-out problem could easily have shifted the outcome from the
>Gallup estimates to what we're seeing now (51% Bush, 47% Kerry).  So if Bush
>wins Ohio, you now know why.  The only difference, now, between Ohio and
>Florida is that Ohio weather sucks, and the brand of election fraud utilized
>in Ohio exploits that fact.

>But perhaps Kerry can take the state anyway, thanks to those people with the
>opportunities, health, stubbornness, and raw fortitude to stand in line for
>FIVE HOURS to cast their vote.  I suspect the vote will be coming in a bit
>late from the poor folks.  Time will tell whether they were more determined
>to vote than the board of elections was determined to quash their vote.

>Power to the people!  (... I hope)

>Peace,
>Sarah

>_______________________________________________
>pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives

>_________________________________________________________________
>Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® 
>Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

>_______________________________________________
>pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives