Why Are We Back In Iraq?

(As I mentioned yesterday, both of the best vote fraud bloggers posted sensational stories yesterday. The other blogger is Joseph Cannon of Cannonfire and he has a huge story which he found at Democratic Underground.)

Of course, Bush didn't win the popular vote in 2000. Vice President Al Gore did by half-a-million votes. So why the misleading title?

Joseph Cannon analyzed a report released by the Social Science Research Council (link) which "explained" (or as Mr. Cannon puts it - "whitewash[ed]") the discrepancies in the early exit poll that were leaked to the Internet that led most bloggers (and even the Kerry and Bush campaigns for a little bit on election day) to believe that democracy would be reinstalled in America in 2005.

Mr. Cannon wrote ("They're lying to you about the exit polls. Here's the proof." link) "So why, in the eyes of the SSRC, did the exit polls show a Kerry win? The SSRC researchers believe that there was a demonstrable Democratic bias in the data, and they repeat the National Election Poll line that "differential response" is to blame. This amounts to an endorsement of what I call the "chatty Dem" theory: "Kerry voters were more likely to agree to be interviewed while Bush voters were less likely.""

The "concrete evidence that the "chatty Dem" explanation is wrong, wrong, wrong" can be found in a post started by TruthIsAll at Democratic Underground using these poll results at CNN which clearly show that the poll takers voted for Bush over Gore in 2000 by a rate of 43% to 37%.

Mr. Cannon: "How, prithee, can the NEP and the SSRC (not to mention Dick Morris and innumerable other GOP propagandists) ask us to believe that the exit polls were skewed in favor of John Kerry? If such weighting existed, then the question about the 2000 race would have resulted in a demonstrable preference for Al Gore."

There is some dissention in the "liberal" ranks with this story. A DUer named smoogatz noted that "[i]t's not altogether unlikely, IMO, that a lot of folks who leaned toward Bush in 2000 but didn't get out to vote would claim they voted for him in an exit poll four years later."

But I believe that this story does at least prove one thing. That the canard that the exit polling was flawed earlier in the day because Bush voters were "afraid" to speak to the pollsters was one of the biggest lies foisted on the American public.

Will this story matter for the 2004 race? No, most definitely not.

Because this isn't the Ukraine. Polls only matter in this country when the Bush Administration officials (including the ones who edit and censor our mainstream media and press) want them to matter.

But what about 2008?

Mr. Cannon's conclusion: "So: According to Warren Mitofsky and those wacky folks at the SSRC, the exit polls were marred by an over-abundant supply of "chatty Dems" who -- for God knows what reason -- bragged about voting for Dubya. And this, we are told, is why we must weight the 2008 exit polls more heavily favor of the G.O.P."

"These people are not only rationalizing the 2004 vote theft, they are laying the groundwork for an even grander heist in the future."

That, my friends, is the significance of these two stories. Certain left-leaning bigger bloggers won't fucking blog about this. Meanwhile, we're about to lose future elections as well.

# posted by Ron Brynaert : 3/23/2005 09:49:00 AM