Why did Florida Democrats vote for Bush?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by diamond geezer, Nov 8, 2004.

  1. diamond geezer macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    #1
    http://www.rubberbug.com/temp/Florida2004chart.htm

    Some Florida Counties were overwhelmingly Democrat in registration, yet they voted overwhelmingly for Bush.

    Why?

    Bradford County

    Registered Dem 61%, Rep 28%, other 10%

    Final votes Kerry 29%, Bush 69%

    Dixie County

    Dem 77%, Rep 15%, other 7%

    Final Votes Kerry 30%, Bush 68%

    There are many more like that, strangely these results only happened is Counties using the older Scanning machines, NOT ones using the new touch screens.
     
  2. Mr_Ed macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Location:
    North and east of Mickeyland
  3. diamond geezer thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    #3
    it does, but I've been banned from posting in there.

    To quote Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men"

    "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth"
     
  4. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #4
    Then maybe you should take a hint, and read the new rules. If you can't post there it's for a reason, don't post political stuff else where :rolleyes:
     
  5. sgarringer macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2004
    Location:
    Cedar Rapids, IA
    #5
    Because Bush paid election officials there to screw with the results?

    Pretty clear to me.

    88,000 Votes were miscalculated. I'm sure Bush is happy to have that new Political Capital to sepend.
     
  6. sgarringer macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2004
    Location:
    Cedar Rapids, IA
    #6
    Maybe some of us dont have something to say about every conversation on Macrumors and havnt reached 100 posts yet, but still like to discuss things like this.

    This is not a personal insult, but instead my belief that limiting people who have injected 100 comments, weather worthelss or not, is a bad way to limit conversation on a forum.

    /edit=replaced spam with have soemthing to say about
     
  7. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #7
    The decision to not allow anyone with less than 100 posts was not mine, I'm just another member. But the rules have been decided by the MR staff, and it's been for a reason. You can't just start turning any forum you like in to a place to talk politics because you feel like it.

    edit: "This is not a personal insult, but instead my belief that limiting people who have injected 100 comments, weather worthelss or not, is a bad way to limit conversation on a forum." was not there when I posted this response, but the point still stands.
     
  8. apple2991 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    #8
    To end this right now: we didn't.

    Look more closely.
     
  9. jemeinc macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    South Jersey
    #9
    RIGHT .... sure he did... The NFL is fixed too... Oh, & that man on the moon thing was all a Hollywood Production... Now we got it... Thanks for clearing that up...
     
  10. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #10
    PM the moderators to see if they'll inflate your post count.

    But trying to avoid the rules doesn't help your case. :rolleyes:
     
  11. maxvamp macrumors 6502a

    maxvamp

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2002
    Location:
    Somewhere out there
    #11
    This thread is like a scud missle. Now that it is launched, we are not sure where it is going to land...

    Might not be a bad idea to close this thred.... This said from a very staunch Democrat...

    Max.
     
  12. SPG macrumors 65816

    SPG

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2001
    Location:
    In the shadow of the Space Needle.
    #12
    Sure, we can dismiss it out of hand, but why not hear it out? Seems a little odd to me, and worth taking a look at.
    There seems to be a lot of weirdness in elections lately, electronic voting machines screwing up, exit polls matching results until the end of the day when they suddenly skew to the other side, vote spoilage levels beign very very high in only certain counties, should all be a casuse for concern.
    These things may be coincidences, they may even be inconsequential coincidences but the value of the vote and the value of the integrity of the vote is far too important to be compromised simply because you don't like to think about what it might say if these things are investigated.
    The republicans ran an effective campaign, not a good one since they went negative early and decisively, but an effective one nonetheless. Should that small margin of victory preclude an accurate assesment of what may have not gone right? Absolutely not. Should there be an investigation of voting irregularities only when one side wins by a an undeniably huge margin? Of course not.
    Look into these things and prove that they are flukes, coincidences, or misrepresentations then nobody will talk conspiracy. Ignore or cover them up and then everyone will talk conspiracy and it will weaken the very foundation of this now fragile democracy.
     
  13. SPG macrumors 65816

    SPG

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2001
    Location:
    In the shadow of the Space Needle.
    #13
    Why not cruise around the rest of this community like most of us have? You'll get to know some interestign posters outside of politics and pick up a pretty good education about how these machines we tap on work.
     

Share This Page