How Did We Fall Through The Looking-Glass?
By Winter Patriot on 8/18/2005, 5:15pm PT  

Guest blogged by Winter Patriot

Recently, in a few different contexts, people have mentioned a new study by Dr. Dennis Loo which proves once again that the 2004 Presidential election was stolen. BRAD BLOG reader and frequent commentor, VDRES, pointed out an article about it here, in fact. So you may have read it already. But I suspect you probably haven't. And that's too bad, because you should.

The introduction reads as if it were intended for The Whispering Campaign:

In order to believe that George Bush won the November 2, 2004 presidential election, you must also believe all of the following extremely improbable or outright impossible things.

1) A big turnout and a highly energized and motivated electorate favored the GOP instead of the Democrats for the first time in history.

2) Even though first-time voters, lapsed voters (those who didn�t vote in 2000), and undecideds went for John Kerry by big margins, and Bush lost people who voted for him in the cliffhanger 2000 election, Bush still received a 3.5 million vote surplus nationally.

3) The fact that Bush far exceeded the 85% of registered Florida Republicans� votes that he got in 2000, receiving in 2004 more than 100% of the registered Republican votes in 47 out of 67 Florida counties, 200% of registered Republicans in 15 counties, and over 300% of registered Republicans in 4 counties, merely shows Floridians� enthusiasm for Bush. He managed to do this despite the fact that his share of the crossover votes by registered Democrats in Florida did not increase over 2000 and he lost ground among registered Independents, dropping 15 points.

4) Florida�s reporting of more presidential votes (7.59 million) than actual number of people who voted (7.35 million), a surplus of 237,522 votes, does not indicate fraud.

5) The fact that Bush got more votes than registered voters, and the fact that by stark contrast participation rates in many Democratic strongholds in Ohio and Florida fell to as low as 8%, do not indicate a rigged election.

6) Bush won re-election despite approval ratings below 50% - the first time in history this has happened. Truman has been cited as having also done this, but Truman�s polling numbers were trailing so much behind his challenger, Thomas Dewey, pollsters stopped surveying two months before the 1948 elections, thus missing the late surge of support for Truman. Unlike Truman, Bush�s support was clearly eroding on the eve of the election.

7) Harris' last-minute polling indicating a Kerry victory was wrong (even though Harris was exactly on the mark in their 2000 election final poll).

8) The �challenger rule� - an incumbent�s final results won�t be better than his final polling - was wrong.

9) On election day the early-day voters picked up by early exit polls (showing Kerry with a wide lead) were heavily Democratic instead of the traditional pattern of early voters being mainly Republican.

10) The fact that Bush �won� Ohio by 51-48%, but this was not matched by the court-supervised hand count of the 147,400 absentee and provisional ballots in which Kerry received 54.46% of the vote doesn�t cast any suspicion upon the official tally.

The list goes on...

... and there are footnotes galore. Virtually every claim made in the entire article is backed by a serious reference. I've omitted the footnote numbers from the quoted passages, but they are all there to be explored in the original.

The end of the list finally arrives, after 18 items; items which, according to Loo, you have to believe, if you also believe that George Bush won the November 2, 2004 presidential election. It's a staggering number of highly improbable --- or wholly impossible --- items, and as Dr. Loo says, if even one of them is false then the so-called "president" was not legitimately elected.

Of course there are those who continue to insist that there's no evidence of fraud in the 2004 election. They have, in other words, left the reality-based community. Don't get me started on that. Let's get back to Dr. Loo.

After the numbered list, he gets into the background, and along the way he presents a solid examination of events which occurred before 2004 and which made this theft possible, or even easy. Here's another sample:

The following is a partial list of 2002 discrepancies that can be understood as dress rehearsals for the stolen presidential election of 2004:

On Nov. 3, 2002, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution poll showed Democratic Sen. Max Cleland with a 49-to-44 point lead over Republican Rep. Saxby Chambliss. The next day, Chambliss, despite trailing by 5 points, ended up winning by a margin of 53 to 46 percent. This was, in other words, an unbelievable 12-point turn around over the course of one day!

In the Georgia governor's race Republican Sonny Perdue upset incumbent Democratic Gov. Roy Barnes by a margin of 52 to 45 percent. This was especially strange given that the October 16-17, 2002 Mason Dixon Poll (Mason Dixon Polling and Research, Inc. of Washington, D.C.) had shown Democratic Governor Barnes ahead 48 to 39 percent, with a margin of error of � 4 points. The final tally was, in other words, a jaw dropping 16-point turn-around! What the Cleland �defeat� by Saxby and the Barnes �defeat� by Perdue both have in common is that nearly all the Georgia votes were recorded on computerized voting machines, which produce no paper trail.

In Minnesota, after Democrat Sen. Paul Wellstone's plane crash death, ex-vice-president Walter Mondale took Wellstone�s place and was leading Republican Norm Coleman in the days before the election by 47 to 39 percent. Despite the fact that he was trailing just days before the race by 8 points, Coleman beat Mondale by 50 to 47 percent. This was an 11-point turn around! The Minnesota race was also conducted on electronic voting machines with no paper trail.

Welcome to a world where statistical probability and normal arithmetic no longer apply! The Democrats, rather than vigorously pursuing these patently obvious signs of election fraud in 2004, have nearly all decided that being gracious losers is better than being winners, probably because � and this may be the most important reason for the Democrat�s relative silence - a full-scale uncovering of the fraud runs the risk of mobilizing and unleashing popular forces that the Democrats find just as threatening as the GOP does.

The delicious irony for the GOP is that the Help America Vote Act, precipitated by their theft of the Florida 2000 presidential vote, made GOP theft of elections as in the preceding examples easy and unverifiable except through recourse to indirect analysis such as pre-election polls and exit polls. This is the political equivalent of having your cake and eating it too. Or, more precisely: stealing elections, running the country, and aggressively, arrogantly and falsely claiming that �the people� support it.

He doesn't mince words, does he? I love when that happens. And I think you should read the whole article. We go into info-war with the information we have, not necessarily the information we'd like to have. And it's always good to have a bit of extra ... ammunition.

When you're finished reading, you're invited to leave a comment, or several. We are always happy to hear from BRAD BLOG readers.