- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
So many people are arguing over this article and many who are against it seem to not understand a simple fact.
There were errors in the Ohio election, but fixing all these errors would have still equalled a Bush victory in the state.
Imagine a Basketball game where there were 20 fouls on scored basktes that were not called, then imagine one team winning by 18 points. Now add in tons of people arguing that the losing team actually won because there were more uncalled fouls than the margin of victory. Of course, nothing stated means the winning team didn't get all the non calls, or that the losing team would have made better than 18 out of 20 baskets even if they should have shot the free throws.
Add to this the losing team only averaging 48% of free throws.
That's what some people are doing. You are trying to say an election was stolen based on very faulty logic.
Ohio was rife with errors, but every election has the same errors. If you only started paying attention to how elections work and exit polls in 2000 you have a distorted view. Every election I've ever followed has these errors and I've been involved in elections since before I could vote. Only twice has I personally seen the errors change the outcome of a race, one was Florida in 2000 where the ballot confusion certainly gave the State to Bush.
Ohio in 2004 does not fall into this case. I have no interest in defending a Bush victory, because I worked against him in both his national elections, but trying to argue that the election in Ohio was stolen falls into the wacky column and it detracts from 2008.
Already you have people in this thread saying they don't think the Dems will win in 2008 because Bush will steal the election as was done in 2004. That kind of defeatist attitude must be challenged.
