It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Just watched CNN start a disinformation campaign and I'll post undeniable proof.

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 12:34 AM

Originally posted by DrVolin
Deeoz, do you have the numbers for number 8 in your post? I would be very interested in seeing them. Thanks.

News sites have changed all of their data on these, so there are a lot of different numbers getting passed around. These numbers were leaked at the time to and are the same as most that I have seen.

1st Exit Poll-2pm
AZ 45-55
CO 48-51
LA 42-57
MI 51-48
WI 52-48
PA 60-40
OH 52-48
FL 51-48
MICH 51-47
NM 50-48
MINN 58-40
WISC 52-43
IOWA 49-49
NH 57-41

These were the final round, leaked at 6:00pm:

And the final 6 p.m. polls:

PA 53 46
FL 51 49
NC 48 52
OH 51 49
MO 46 54
AK 47 53
MI 51 47
NM 50 49
LA 43 56
CO 48 51
AZ 45 55
MN 54 44
WI 52 47
IA 49 49

PA 51 49
FL 47 52
NC 43 56
OH 49 51
MO 46 53
MI 51 48
NM 50 50
LA 42 57
CO 46 52
AZ 45 55
MN 51 48
WI 50 49
IA 49 50

Links to some good graphs of these by type of voting process:

Kerry Margin-Final Exit Poll vs. Actual(Non-paper ballot states(NC wrong)):

Kerry Margin-Final Exit Poll vs. Actual(Paper ballot states):


Whenever I paste my data that I've organized, in charts, tables, etc. It becomes unreadable. Is there a trick to do that or is it not possible.

[edit on 7-11-2004 by deeozz]

[edit on 7-11-2004 by deeozz]

[edit on 7-11-2004 by deeozz]

posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 01:03 AM
Actually, I believe the media tried to pull a slick maneuver minus the help of FOX news.

Mind you, they report the entire time while everyone is voting AND the voting booths don't all close at the same time across the country. Because of their capability to broadcast live all across the nation, I believe they tried to some degree to discourage Republican voters in the more western states by claiming Kerry was ahead in the polls. Some people won't vote if they feel its a lost cause.

You can claim voting fraud all you want to at the voting booth level, but if the media was trying to use polling data or manipulating the numbers in polling data to steer a win for Kerry, then that's something else altogether. Nobody likes big government, but everyone hates big media even more because it can steer the masses on false information.

Go back and look, everyone but Fox, was trying to give Kerry the edge on TV.

posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 05:57 AM

Originally posted by Kwintz
George W. Bush won the presidency. It's as simple as that.
-No it's not
All those young voters didn't get out and vote for their boy John Kerry.
-Yes, they did, along with their grandparents, often waiting in line for
many hours since Reps decided that, despite expecting a higher
turn, they wouldn't use their grant to get more machines until
either 2005 or 2006
Quit whining. Jesus Christ, how many threads can there be like BUSH CHEATED!
-Actually, you are whining, I'm simply presenting FACTS
Sorry dems, you all got beat. It's as simple as that.
-I am not a Dem, and they didn't get beat
And you know what? In Philadelphia, PA, 3 electronic voting machines already had 1500 votes for Kerry before anyone voted. Nobody cheated. Technology can be fickle, that's all this is.
-True, and thanks to FOX reporting on it all day, after election
officials explained the 1500 was like an "odometer" and wouldn't count
that morning, ignorant people like yourself don't bother facing reality
The people have spoken, and we chose President Bush to lead our nation for another 4 years. He did not cheat on tuesday.
He did not cheat in 2000.
So stop making these accusations.
-Just find it odd that almost all irregularities happen to be in counties
that use use machines that don't leave a paper trail.....and Bush
often ends up with unexplained extra votes from those
irregularities.......and Kerry often has an unexplained drop in votes...
...and that Republican election officials without any explanation
insisted on having some paperless machines........thus not using
voting machines that are verifiable........and they were programmed
by companies that support Bush........and the CEO of Diebold, based in
Colombus, Ohio, the state that has historically almost always gone to
the winner, wrote in a letter that he was committed to delivering
Ohio's electoral votes to the President
Maybe if the Dems throw Obama Barak
-Barak Obama
on the ticket in 2008 (based on his future senate record),
-Didn't Cheney recently point out that since Bush didn't win the
majority of the votes in 2000, he is technically run again in 2008, yes
he did(I'll find a link for that too, b/c now that I'm thinking about it
that is really damn scary-if he really is able to run again and I think
he is because I've heard the same said about Diggler
yall might have a shot at taking control of the whitehouse
-Not against Bush! He would surely have it rigged again and it will be
much easier with at least twice as many machines. Then in 2012, he
won't run, but the voting machines will mysteriously say that he
recieved the most votes? lol And he will claim that the people have
spoken and remain in the White House. lol
But Kerry couldn't beat a president that had rock-bottom approval ratings.
-That is part of the reason it is so obvious-lots of people hate Bush,
yet he still won counties in Ohio that have some of the best and
recently renovated hospitals in the country, that are a block away
from neighborhoods filled with poor families that can't afford them,
whose incomes had gone down in the last 4 years and unemployment
was up in the last four years.... AND HAD PAPERLESS VOTING
I think voters actually thought about it when they got to the polls. They thought about leadership, and GW was their man.
-Are you serious?????? I'll start another "BUSH CHEATED" thread just for you and only list reasons not regarding the rigged elections why that is so unlikely.
-I bet I can list more reasons why it is unlikely than you can
list why it is likely?

-And I can verify them too, so none of this "Unlike my opponent
who voted 2,975 times to raise taxes on the middle and lower
classes in the last 18 years, wants to eliminate small businesses,
and voted to decrease intelligence spending by 95%, and even
proposed a law to give our brave young soldiers fighting the war
on terrr, a revolver, instead of an M-16, while they bring evil-doers
to justice and spread viol, scuse me, freedom and pov-ahem,
democray, throughout the great Middle East, to countries that
often geographically are in a very strategic location for a network
of pipel-achoo!, of terrorism! and are known to be in posession of
the world's second largest amount of crud-cough, 2nd
largest amount of nucleer bombs, which they intend to fly into the
living rooms of soccer-moms, and African Americans and quite
possibly, Nascar dads throughout America. These brave young
men and women of our military travel the world as a symbol
domina-ahem democracy and fearfmfreedom! the name of
halib*cough, in the United States of America. However, I have
passed 317 bills worth $2,231,648,989,932,646,877,612, to
spend on education....and therefore the American people are
better educated and more people are going to have jobs, that pay
better, and families are going to be better off.....and I'm going
to renew the tax cuts, because I think it's important that the
American people keep more of the money that they work so hard
for. God Bless America"

lol, sorry, got a little carried away there-I think I could probably be W's speechwriter.

No one cheated. S*** happens.

-BS, No it doesn't

posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 06:18 AM
I saw them blame the bloggers too, which is absolutely ridiculous. Most of our main media is owned by republicans and they have a lot of power over what we see. I guess their looking for anything and anyone to blame this election outcome on, instead of the rigged machines.

posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 07:26 AM
Having a good deal of experience with things like focus groups, opinion polls, and statistical analysis of opinion polls, I can say that the conclusions about fudging the poll numbers are incorrect. Pollsters look first for an accurate sampling of the people being polled. This includes an appropriate mix of all demographic and psychographic profiles. This mix can't be accurate until all samplings are received and tabulated. It's been clear that different demo/psycho groups vote differently and at different times. People anxious for change tend to vote earlier in the day, and people busy at work tend to vote later. There's no conspiracy here other than the "blogger's" inexperience with the reality of opinion polls and the statistical analysis of resulting numbers.

posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 07:28 AM

And throw in that there are "personalities" that will be more likely to be willing to take part in an exit poll than other "personalities"...and I believe that there is a bias that takes place when you take this into account as well.

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in