and that's what makes it so hard to nail him down as the right wing hack that he is. yes, RFK's article is rife with inaccuaracies and omissions, but that's probably by design as well. As Public Enemy once wrote in a song, "some blacks act Devil, too". (of course, you have to read this metaphorically to apply it here) RFKjr is acting Devil in his omissions, instead causing lefties to focus on non-issues, or easliy debunked issues. No one is asking why the hell there was a county in Ohio with 800 registered voters, yet it somehow churned out **5000** votes for Bush?

anybody? anybody?

yes, there's "no way to prove if the election was stolen or not"---THAT'S THE DAMN PROBLEM, YOU FOOLS!!.

the fact that the *supposedly* most advanced democracy in the world CAN'T seem to verify its elections IS THE ENTIRE ISSUE-that's it.

ohhh, yeah....that, and the fact that our votes are tallied by private corporations and NOT election judges. those vote tallies are also dependent on the same private corporations, one of which publicly promised to "deliver the votes for George W Bush in November". (CEO of Diebold Systems, shareholder's meeting, January 2004)

Democrats didn't say "boo" because they probably go sweet kickbacks from the same companies as the Republicans. they're all on the same side, and that side is NOT the people's.

Manjoo cites "Mark Lindeman, a political scientist at Bard College"

...in precincts where Bush got 80 percent or more of the vote, an average of 56 percent of people who were approached volunteered to take part in the poll, while in precincts where Kerry got 80 percent or more of the vote, a lower average of 53 percent of people were willing to be surveyed.

...where the average completion rate was 56 percent -- it's possible that only 53 percent of those who voted for Bush were willing to be polled, while people who voted for Kerry participated at a higher 59 percent rate.

In this scenario, the averages work out to the same ones Kennedy cited: a 56 percent average response rate in Bush strongholds.

A 53 percent response rate among Bush voters and a 59 percent response rate among Kerry voters averaging out to a total 56 percent response rate only works if there were equal numbers of voters for both candidates. But the example clearly states that the numbers were far from equal, that 80 percent were voting for Bush and 20 percent were voting for Kerry.

If we use the correct mathematics to examine these numbers, we see 80 percent (the number of Bush voters) times 53 percent (the number of Bush voters willing to be polled) plus 20% (the number of Kerry voters) times 59% (the number of Kerry voters willing to be polled) we get a 66 percent average response rate, not 56 percent as Manjoo incorrectly reports.

If Lindeman really said that Manjoo's math was correct, he is utterly incompetent to comment on this issue.

Either Lindeman actually made this staggeringly inept comparison, and Manjoo didn't notice it, or Manjoo woefully misinterpreted Lindeman's position. Either way, it is evidence that Manjoo doesn't understand the mathematics involved nearly well enough to relied upon to make useful comments.

Manjoo should be embarrassed. Lindeman should be embarrassed. Salon should be embarrassed. And Salon should find a competent reporter to address such issues.

----------------------

Also, the title of the piece is inappropriate.

Was the 2004 election stolen? No.

There is nothing in this article that could possibly lead to any conclusions as to whether the election was or wasn't stolen. The only thing the article addresses is whether Kennedy proves it was stolen.

Does Kennedy prove the election was stolen? No.

That would be a title that correctly described the article.

Kennedy and others make a huge mistake in allowing themselves to be distracted by conspiracy theories about the 2004 election. That turns our political discourse into kindergarten whining about cheating when our democracy is in danger.

In _Kingdom Coming_,Michelle Goldberg makes her case that the Republican party did a brilliant job of out-organizing the Democrats in 2004, by organizing via the Christian Right and threats about the "gay agenda." Voters turned out lest the homos take over the world, and Bush won. Most of this happened under the radar of conventional politics. No "cheating" was required.

Liberals need to see and understand these tactics, because we're going to be beaten by them again and again until we learn how to deal with them. The demonization of GLBT Americans provides a vehicle by which the Religious Right can bypass the usual church/state separation of the pulpit from the voting booth.

Forget this stupid conspiracy stuff: I for one do not wish to live in some real-world Handmaid's Tale, and that, folks, is where we are headed.

...with bad math of my own.

80 percent times 53 percent plus 20 percent times 59 percent = 54.2 percent.

Not 66 percent as I incorrectly reported.

I am embarrassed.

I am embarrassed.

Hey, you didn't see my SAT math section!

There may be no smoking gun in Ohio, but given the partisantship motivated by religious fanatacism that animates republican officeholders and elections supervisors in many areas and very specifically in Ohio, combined with documented failure of those same authorities to provide adaquate funtional machines, etc. etc. etc only in democratic areas, it is very reasonable to believe the election was stolen

... given the partisantship motivated by religious fanatacism that animates republican officeholders ...

This statement shows why Kerry lost in 2004 and why the Democrats, despite their present giddy hopes, are going to lose in '06 and '08. It's the complete misunderstanding of what motivates religious voters (evangelicals, Roman Catholics and conservative Jews). To call the very traditional and simple belief that marriage is sacred and not something to be redefined based on current fads "religious fanaticism" shows bigotry of the highest sort. To then have Howard Dean call conservative religious types "bigots" just further alientates them.

Nancy Pelosi, Hillary and everyone else can mouth all the religious platitudes they want. They can artificially wedge biblical citations in all their speechs, but they're not fooling anyone.

The Dems will never get the religious vote because we don't believe you, and we're tired of being mocked for beliefs that were mainstream a mere 15 years ago.