[lbo-talk] Vote 2004: Why Kennedy and Rolling Stone Are All Wet

[mike larkin]

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/06/03/kennedys_claim_refuted.html

Kennedy's Claim Refuted

Salon examines Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s recent
examination of whether Republicans stole the 2004
election and offers its response in a word: no.

"The evidence he cites isn't new and his argument is
filled with distortions and blatant omissions."

For example, in response to Kennedy’s claim that one
out of every four registered voters in Ohio were not
on the voter rolls, Salon writes that the cited study
"found no significant difference in the share of Kerry
voters and Bush voters who came to the polls and
didn't find their names listed."

As for the 357,000 overwhelmingly Democratic voters
who were prevented from casting ballots, Salon reports
that "Kennedy finds these 'missing votes' in the
damnedest places.

He counts 30,000 voter registrations that were deleted
from voter rolls, in keeping with state law, as mostly
Kerry voters, though it's impossible to know if those
were even real people. He says that 174,000 mostly
Kerry voters didn't vote because they were put off by
long lines.

But the source states it was actually 129,543 voters,
and that those votes would have split evenly between
Kerry and Bush. And that same source -- the Democratic
Party's report once again -- notes conclusively:
'Despite the problems on Election Day, there is no
evidence from our survey that John Kerry won the state
of Ohio.' But Kennedy doesn't tell you that."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/06/03/kennedy/index_np.html

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com